|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 2:42:00 GMT
sorry I am still confused, are you saying that the soul does not live without the body? I thought that the whole doctrine was that we have an afterlife, what is in the afterlife if it is not a soul. and no people are destroying the physical form, God has the option (like with all souls) of saving the soul, it is a basic tenet of Christianity that the soul is available after death, why would a just God not save the soul of a foetus (assuming you believe it has one)? I am not aware of the Christian Dictrone being based on the need for an immortal soul. I don;t think the Doctrine teaches an afterlife at all...Only a life. You may be confusing resurrection with afterlife, but that's irrelevant since not everyone is guaranteed that in the first place. There are plenty of Scriptures that point to the fact that dead is dead and so that's what I'm sticking with. I think there are plenty of scriptures that point to an afterlife of a spiritual nature, something that is impossible with out a soul. You are a latter day saint or seventh day adventist yes? so just to be clear your stance is that physical death also equals death of the soul? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 28, 2017 2:52:10 GMT
You're missing the point. God's not destroying anything, humans are. Souls die because people die. Are you thinking I'm saying feus souls are mortal while people souls are immortal? In any event, hour question has been asked and answered repeatedly, so not sure where else to go with this. sorry I am still confused, are you saying that the soul does not live without the body? I thought that the whole doctrine was that we have an afterlife, what is in the afterlife if it is not a soul. and no people are destroying the physical form, God has the option (like with all souls) of saving the soul, it is a basic tenet of Christianity that the soul is available after death, why would a just God not save the soul of a foetus (assuming you believe it has one)? The word translated as "soul" in the bible refers only to a living being of mind, will, and emotion. Hence certain animals which exhibit these features also have souls. There is no such thing as the "immortal soul", or a soul as in some sort of inner essence of a person in scripture. Those ideas were added to Christian doctrine later. And even then it depends on the denomination; some do not acknowledge the inner soul idea. The bible says that the soul that sins will die, indicating that the soul is mortal. It also implies that the soul can be destroyed by God. An afterlife is the result of resurrection (of the body and soul), not immortality of either. And that resurrection to life is only for those who are saved in Christ. There are many passages that speak to this. The inverse of eternal life is eternal destruction, or the second death. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 2:55:56 GMT
sorry I am still confused, are you saying that the soul does not live without the body? I thought that the whole doctrine was that we have an afterlife, what is in the afterlife if it is not a soul. and no people are destroying the physical form, God has the option (like with all souls) of saving the soul, it is a basic tenet of Christianity that the soul is available after death, why would a just God not save the soul of a foetus (assuming you believe it has one)? The word translated as "soul" in the bible refers only to a living being of mind, will, and emotion. Hence certain animals which exhibit these features also have souls. There is no such thing as the "immortal soul", or a soul as in some sort of inner essence of a person in scripture. Those ideas were added to Christian doctrine later. And even then it depends on the denomination; some do not acknowledge the inner soul idea. The bible says that the soul that sins will die, indicating that the soul is mortal. It also implies that the soul can be destroyed by God. An afterlife is the result of resurrection (of the body and soul), not immortality of either. And that resurrection to life is only for those who are saved in Christ. There are many passages that speak to this. The inverse of eternal life is eternal destruction, or the second death. I don't believe in the physical resurrection, and as Jesus was seen without his body that indicates that the soul can survive death. Again I think you are treating Christians as monolithic. coldcasechristianity.com/2016/the-brief-biblical-case-for-the-eternal-life-of-the-soul/ |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 28, 2017 4:11:22 GMT
They go to fetus heaven. It's real, prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 28, 2017 4:15:17 GMT
Then I guess we're pretty much doing them a favour by aborting them. Going by that argument, we do EVERYBODY a favour by murdering them, when their souls return to Our Heavenly Father. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 4:26:44 GMT
If you follow the doctrine of the quickening then there is no soul in an aborted baby, the soul is not placed in the baby until after the quickening. I don't hold any organized religious beliefs, yet if I did this would be the most reasonable answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Ainz_Ooal_Gown on Jun 28, 2017 5:39:17 GMT
Quickening? What the hell are you guys even talking about?
You telling me that all births pretty much go like this?:
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 28, 2017 6:19:48 GMT
Then I guess we're pretty much doing them a favour by aborting them. Going by that argument, we do EVERYBODY a favour by murdering them, when their souls return to Our Heavenly Father. Sounds acceptable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2017 9:13:14 GMT
First, prove the soul.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:17:06 GMT
Then I guess we're pretty much doing them a favour by aborting them. Going by that argument, we do EVERYBODY a favour by murdering them, when their souls return to Our Heavenly Father. If one believes that the soul of every murdered person went to heaven, then yes, that would be logical. But many believe that once a child is beyond the age of accountability - whatever number you pick for that - then if it dies in a state of sin without accepting jesus as saviour, the soul goes to hell. Murdering an adult therefore denies the person many opportunities to come to jesus if they have not already, which is about the worst thing you could possibly do to a person. But under the logic of salvation, murdering a fetus or a child below the age of accountability would be the most wonderful thing you could do for them. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 11:17:13 GMT
I am not aware of the Christian Dictrone being based on the need for an immortal soul. I don;t think the Doctrine teaches an afterlife at all...Only a life. You may be confusing resurrection with afterlife, but that's irrelevant since not everyone is guaranteed that in the first place. There are plenty of Scriptures that point to the fact that dead is dead and so that's what I'm sticking with. I think there are plenty of scriptures that point to an afterlife of a spiritual nature, something that is impossible with out a soul. You are a latter day saint or seventh day adventist yes? so just to be clear your stance is that physical death also equals death of the soul? A spiritual life is not an afterlife, it is a life and is not dependent on death at all. After all, most spiritual lives in the Bible have always been spiritual lives. Again, you may be thinking resurrection is afterlife but it's not and never has been referred to as such. Further, you are separating two things that may not need separation. And please stop trying to guess my religion. That isn't important because all I'm doing is reading stuff.I've read the Bible enough times to know what it says is all. It doesn't matter one lick if a particular religion believes something if that belief is wrong. So if you're telling me I'm wrong based off what other people merely say or assume, I'm not sure how that is a debating topic. Let's go back to the beginning where I said a an abortion kills the fetus and it's based entirely on the mother choosing to do so for who knows how many various irrational reasons. The fetus isn't anything but dead and God is not in any way obligated to save it considering humans under their own authorities decided it wasn;t worth living. Humans have been doing those kind of determinations for millennia, and abortions are simply examples of why people suck at governing themselves rather than trust in God to make the right decisions. I know that's different than the notion of a "loving" God that simply programs humans to not do anything wrong, but it's what we asked for and God does like to spoil his creation...That may be a flaw I guess depending on perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 11:30:32 GMT
tpfkar  Such callous depravity your faith lowers you to. Claw for those scattered goodies!
The destruction of the wicked is literal and as a collective they make up the heavens and the earth that people think don't change. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 28, 2017 11:45:11 GMT
The word translated as "soul" in the bible refers only to a living being of mind, will, and emotion. Hence certain animals which exhibit these features also have souls. There is no such thing as the "immortal soul", or a soul as in some sort of inner essence of a person in scripture. Those ideas were added to Christian doctrine later. And even then it depends on the denomination; some do not acknowledge the inner soul idea. The bible says that the soul that sins will die, indicating that the soul is mortal. It also implies that the soul can be destroyed by God. An afterlife is the result of resurrection (of the body and soul), not immortality of either. And that resurrection to life is only for those who are saved in Christ. There are many passages that speak to this. The inverse of eternal life is eternal destruction, or the second death. I don't believe in the physical resurrection, and as Jesus was seen without his body that indicates that the soul can survive death. Again I think you are treating Christians as monolithic. coldcasechristianity.com/2016/the-brief-biblical-case-for-the-eternal-life-of-the-soul/Again, I'm not treating Christians as monolith. I specifically stated that the specific beliefs in this regard depends on the denomination. I'm just telling you what the Bible says, and what soul means according to how it's used in scripture. You can "believe" anything you want. With respect to the resurrection, the bible says it is physical. Again, you can choose not to believe what it says, but that's specific to you. Isaiah 26:19 But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise— let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy— your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead. Any Jesus was not seen without his body. When he was raised to life after the three days, he had a body. In fact, it was the very fact that he had a body which he used to demonstrate to the disciples that it was really him. Luke 24:2-3, 6 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: Luke 24:36-39 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Jesus did appear to Paul in a vision, but that was after he had already ascended to heaven. This is no different than when Moses appeared to Jesus and the disciples in the clouds. But neither of those examples would be indicative of them not having a body. But again, YOU can choose to believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 12:05:19 GMT
tpfkar Such callous depravity your faith lowers you to. Claw for those scattered goodies!
The destruction of the wicked is literal and as a collective they make up the heavens and the earth that people think don't change.The statement is not based on faith but on fact. My faith would never be dependent on the stupidity of humanity to think it's a good idea to kill their own prekids. Rather, my faith is based entirely on life so not sure what you're talking about. If you think life is a bad thing then maybe I lack comprehension of what depraved means or maybe it's Opposite Day. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 12:11:52 GMT
tpfkar Your faith is based on worshipping a being that obliterates entirely innocent souls for no fault of their own, so that you can get your personal door prizes. And yes, you guys do have colossal morality gaps in even understanding depravity.
I would say that God wouldn't care one way or another as long as they are treated fairly...which is why there is instruction on it to begin with. The fact is that a slave could be an overseer in the congregation his master goes to because Scripture makes pretty clear that everyone has equal rights within the church if not in society. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 28, 2017 13:02:42 GMT
Going by that argument, we do EVERYBODY a favour by murdering them, when their souls return to Our Heavenly Father. If one believes that the soul of every murdered person went to heaven, then yes, that would be logical. But many believe that once a child is beyond the age of accountability - whatever number you pick for that - then if it dies in a state of sin without accepting jesus as saviour, the soul goes to hell. Murdering an adult therefore denies the person many opportunities to come to jesus if they have not already, which is about the worst thing you could possibly do to a person. But under the logic of salvation, murdering a fetus or a child below the age of accountability would be the most wonderful thing you could do for them. There are some who believe that the souls of the unbaptized--including those who have not been born--go to a state known as Limbo. I do not go by that belief, hence I mentioned that they returned to God. But even if they do return to God, God Had Plans for these people in this life, & that had been interrupted by those who have aborted them. It is the same as when they have been born, but some sicko came along & killed them, while they are defenceless. The fact that their souls have returned to God, does not negate the fact that they had been killed in cold blood. We are horrified when someone evil ---hole kills babies and/or small children. We do not bless such people for returning them to God. We usually cry out for their own blood in return. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 15:27:10 GMT
tpfkar Your faith is based on worshipping a being that obliterates entirely innocent souls for no fault of their own, so that you can get your personal door prizes. And yes, you guys do have colossal morality gaps in even understanding depravity.
I would say that God wouldn't care one way or another as long as they are treated fairly...which is why there is instruction on it to begin with. The fact is that a slave could be an overseer in the congregation his master goes to because Scripture makes pretty clear that everyone has equal rights within the church if not in society.My faith isn't based on that.
If god didn't kill anyone and people just lived out their lives the way they wanted to, it would have no impact on my faith so you're accusing me of the wrong thing.
I'm sure you can come up with more accurate insults that actually do tie into my faith.
For example, an oldie but goodie has always been that people should have salvation simply for being born (Although that doesn't really apply for abortions, I'm sure you can contort it into something else) regardless of how much they hate or disbelieve in God or attack his followers.
That's something I may be able to work with for about 2 or 3 responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 15:27:40 GMT
If one believes that the soul of every murdered person went to heaven, then yes, that would be logical. But many believe that once a child is beyond the age of accountability - whatever number you pick for that - then if it dies in a state of sin without accepting jesus as saviour, the soul goes to hell. Murdering an adult therefore denies the person many opportunities to come to jesus if they have not already, which is about the worst thing you could possibly do to a person. But under the logic of salvation, murdering a fetus or a child below the age of accountability would be the most wonderful thing you could do for them. There are some who believe that the souls of the unbaptized--including those who have not been born--go to a state known as Limbo. I do not go by that belief, hence I mentioned that they returned to God. But even if they do return to God, God Had Plans for these people in this life, & that had been interrupted by those who have aborted them. It is the same as when they have been born, but some sicko came along & killed them, while they are defenceless. The fact that their souls have returned to God, does not negate the fact that they had been killed in cold blood. We are horrified when someone evil ---hole kills babies and/or small children. We do not bless such people for returning them to God. We usually cry out for their own blood in return. What makes you choose not to believe in Limbo? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 15:44:34 GMT
tpfkar I can't help it if you find facts to be insulting, even outside of your "hated prekid" nonsense and rambling aggrieved yelps. God decides what happens to souls, period. You're fine with "innocent" ones being obliterated as long as you get yours. A repugnant concession you wouldn't otherwise make save for your depraved faith. 
how to deal with religious haters |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 15:47:38 GMT
tpfkar God makes some with the traits they need to get into heaven. He made you, didn't he?  Unless you're saying it's just some kind of perverse lottery?
Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you. |
|
