This is a follow up OP to my previous two where I’d challenged some of the common Christian views, such as the immortally of the soul and the origin of evil.
At UD, I also questioned the suppose holiness of Billy Graham-who recently passed away-and the comparison of him to apostle Paul as well as Graham’s confidence that he was going to go to heaven to be with the Lord here.
It looks like that pushed some of the true Christians over the edge at UD and consequently I was challenged to admit as being a closet atheist or as Truth Will Set You Free called me a/mat (atheist/materialist)…
41 Truth Will Set You Free
You are delusional, and you are the real coward. Stop lying to yourself. Embrace your a/mat nihllism.”
My response to this challenge was:
42 J-Mac
Well, I think the only way out of this for you is that you are going to have to prove your claim…
I hope you live up to your name Truth Will Set You Free… Otherwise I’d suggest you change your name to Falsehood Will Set You Up…”
As expected, I never got a response with at least some proof why Truth Will Set You Free and others would think I was a closet atheist…
Although this is not the first time I was accused of being an atheist, this time though it happened after I had taken some shots at the most cherished belief of the frequent contributors at UD, namely BA77, kairosfocus, Truth Will Set You Free, Barry, Dionisio and many others… namely the afterlife….
Here is my final comment on the challenge:
“So, it looks like the time has come for me to face the truth and make up my mind whether I should support the atheistic/materialistic views, like the view of material, soulless body, or the theistic views with the immortal soul that survives the death of the body and either inherited the heavenly realm or the fiery hell…
Ever since I have been challenged by Truth Will Set You Free and others I have been thinking about it for few days and it looks like I’m going to need help of all of you… Simply put, it is not an easy decision. So, please help me out to make the right one.
As you may remember that one of the reasons I question some theistic/ Christian believes is the teaching of the immortality of the soul.
In Gen 2:16 and 17 we read:
“16 God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
So, according to the bible scripture, in God’s own words, the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, which meant disobedience and sin, was supposed to be death. There is no mention of the survival of anything, like a soul, that was going to continue living in a spiritual realm, either in heaven or hell…
God said: “…You will surely die…” No hell, no afterlife, no nothing is ever said
After Adam and Eve sinned, one would hope that God would surly tell them all the details about their future regarding the continuation of their life as immortal souls…
And yet, nothing again:ì
Gen 3:19
“By the sweat of your face, You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
God said: “…You will return do the ground… because from it you were taken…”
So again, no word about the immortal soul continuing to live on in the spirit realm as the theistic/Christian teachings claim…
Instead, God clearly tells them that they are going to return to where they were before…
So, as you can see, if I were to accept the theistic/Christian teaching of the immortality of the soul, which continues after death, I would have to go against God’s own statements that are clearly the opposite to the beliefs of many Christians, including the many at UD, like Truth Will Set You free, BA77, ET, and many, many others…
However, this is not the end of the story…
When Satan convinced Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, what did he tell them the effect of the eating of the fruit would be?
Well read it for yourself:
Gen 3:1-5
“1 Now the serpent (Satan) was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’? 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’?”4 (Satan) “No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”
So, obviously you can see the real problem I would have if I were to accept the theistic/Christian teachings of the immortality of the soul that survives death.
I would not only be supporting Satan’s claim that the eating of the forbidden fruit doesn’t lead to death, but rather to being like God, I would also have to be forced to claim that God, yes the Christian God, is a liar… because he said if you sin, you will die…
So, if I decide to stick with theists and support the teachings of immortality of the soul, like the true Christians like, Truth Will Set You Free , BA77, KF and many others believe, I actually would have to claim that God is a liar and Satan’s claim when he said:
“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”
was actually true…
So, please help me to make the right decisions.
If I stick with the beliefs of Truth Will Set You Free, BA77, KF and many others at UD, I’m going to be a hypocrite, and accuse God of lying. But if I support God’s statements and expose Satan as slander and lair, the true Christians at UD are going to continue to claim that I hide my true beliefs and you will call me an atheist/materialist… What should I do?
Truth Will Set You Free, BA77, ET, KF and others; what would you do if you were in my situation?
I think, I have no choice and I’m going to support God’s claims and oppose Satan’s falsehood even though I’m going to risk to be abused by you and called names like a/mat…
After all, if I can’t be true to myself, why even bother to breath? We agree at least on one thing: God is righteous and truthful even when hypocrites accused Him of being a lair….He will repay everyone in full…We can be assured of that…
I’m just wondering: Who is it going to be?
Am I going straight to hell?”
What do you all think? Did I do the right thing despite the possible consequences of being accused of being delusional and closet atheist? Am I a closet atheist? What do atheists think? Do I belong with you? Do I belong with true Christians like BA77, Barry, Dr. Egnor ,TWSYF and others? Do I even belong with the ID crowd?
1) I’m not arguing about the existence of God and I have no idea why you are still arguing about it.
2) God can die in my place and still exist because he is God.
quote:
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
(Rev 1:17-18)
end quote:
I’m going to assume you are writing in good faith and actually want to know the answer.
What I would suggest you do in that case is ask him yourself and then look around for his answer.
Here is a good place to start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7B5jokJsqk
peace
If Christianity is true it would be evil not to tell you the good news.
peace
Time to visit that dictionary again. I believe your favorite was Merriam-Webster:
God is a Trinity. Three separate persons each fully God yet there is only one God.
The Trinity did not die for me
Christ who is God died for me.
He literally passed out existence and was resurrected on the third day.
Now I’m sure you know that Christians don’t think that physical death is necessarily the end of all existence forever. Christianity has a concept called resurrection. It’s kind of a big deal for us 😉
peace
Fair enough. But if dying is only a temporary inconvenience, don’t you think that that severely diminishes this proof that God is not evil? Dying for you just doesn’t sound so dramatic anymore if he just pops into existence again a few days later.
I mean: I appreciate that you trust God to be good, and that is good enough for me. But you seem to be ever compelled to rationalize these sentiments.
There are good reasons for the use of the word Nachash in Genesis. From http://www.therain.org
So IMO the tempter in Genesis is Lucifer, the light bearer. The Genesis story relates the time when the self-conscious ego first appeared in individual humans. Because of the Luciferic influence humans became self-conscious before they were quite ready. And for the first time the ego experienced physical death.
CharlieM,
Thanks. That was interesting. I am, however, not sure of the level of scholarship. The chain of reasoning seems a bit tenuous, and the web site looks like a fringe group.
Here’s another opinion.
Did Jesus have a soul?
How much certainty does knowledge require, 50.1 %?
If Calvin was correct, it doesn’t matter…
Sure it does
You are confusing Calvinism with occasionalism.
God does the saving but that does not mean he does not work through secondary causes.
peace
none.
Knowledge only requires justification and belief and truth
peace
For me soul is just a fancy way of saying self. So since Jesus was a conscious person and not a zombie or a robot he had (has) a soul.
peace
Dying is not a temporary inconvenience. It’s death.
The death of the savior is the single largest sacrifice that God could possibly make for anyone. and he did it specifically for me.
I’d love to discuss the profound condescension involved in the Atonement but I’m afraid that I could not continue to think well of you when you inevitably make light of something that is so important to me.
Here is a tiny glimpse of the profound εκενωσεν (emptying) that Christ endured for me
quote:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Php 2:1-8)
end quote:
On the cross that εκενωσεν was so profound that very second person of the Trinity would pray “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
(Mar 15:34)
I know that this is all foolishness to you but to those of us who have experienced his love it is the very heart of God and the essence of his being.
So much so that the thought of God being anything but merciful and loving and kind is simply unthinkable
peace
It’s not about rationalization it’s about trying to share my personal knowledge of a person I love with someone who is not only unfamiliar with him but who seems to have an unfair bias against him.
I’m convinced that any sane person would love him just like I do if they would just take the time to get to know him.
peace
I did not mean to do that, so I apologise if you got that impression.
Once again, you’re ignoring what Calvin said. God has already chosen who the elect are. Any action on the part of humans after the fact is totally irrelevant. Oh…and then there’s the whole “without merit” you keep ignoring too.
How can this be reconciled with free will?
Are you certain?
It cannot be reconciled. Calvinists lean on “Divine” determinism: “God controls whatsoever comes to pass.” They still claim that “sinners” are too blame for the “sins” that “God” has built them to do and controlled them to perform. Go figure.
Steiner from his book Riddles of Philosophy
In order for you to be as you now are, the zygote that you once were, the embryo, the baby, the toddler had to pass out of existence, to cease to be.
Don’t lose track of the fact that any happiness felt in heaven is also an illusion created by the omniscient, omnipotent deity.
It’s all a Sim.
I am sorry to tell you that the person you addressed in your comment has died.
So death is not a final termination but a change from one form to another, yes? The caterpillar dies to give life to the butterfly.
You seem able to speak only in bad metaphors. It’s really easy to tell the difference between a live butterfly and a dead caterpillar. I’d be happy to show you some time.
Yes, I got that. But I hope you will agree that there is also a sense in which the zygote that I once was, the embryo, the baby, and the toddler have not died and I happen to think that that distinction is important.
Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle.
Does the heart, and the hand, and the foot, of the embryo, the baby, the toddler, pass out of existence and cease to be?
Yes, names change as development occurs. The ceasing to be, not so much.
Glen Davidson
Yes, and that is what Heraclitus was getting at. He saw everything as emanating from the element of fire, all is in a state of flux. The one is in the many.
Tell me, which of your skin cells or blood cells when you were a baby have not ceased to exist in the course of your life?
All of the ones that have undergone mitosis to produce the ones that I have now.
Glen Davidson
So let me get this right. You are saying that some of your skin or blood cells have a lifetime of several decades?
Your smug assumption that you have secret profound knowledge is annoying. Just saying.
Just look where that profound knowledge has got him though!
Some cells from the visual cortex have been found to be exactly the same age as the individual possessing them, showing that new neurons are not generated after birth in this region of the cerebral cortex.
Not sure where you are getting the idea of profundity from. Everyone knows that caterpillars turn into butterflies, it is easy to observe. The fact that our skin is constantly renewing itself is not so easy to see. It takes a bit more thought although I wouldn’t call it profound knowledge.
I’m getting the idea from your smug statements, like “Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle”, regarding your conflation of metamorphosis with death. It’s not the turning into butterflies that’s the attempt at profundity, it’s the equation with death. Do you not possess knowledge far beyond that of the so-called scientists? Is it not your purpose to educate us all?
From the op:
Steiner on Plato and the soul:
You will not hear many Christians talking about pre-existence. What are your thoughts on this J-Mac?
CharlieM,
I very much hope that you are not taking Steiner as an authority on Plato. His reading of Plato is hopelessly confused.
No but I know.
peace
It’s not irrelevant at all often it’s the action of humans that God uses to bring to pass what he has decreed.
I’m not ignoring anything. Salvation is a gift that is given to undeserving sinners not based on any merit on their part.
quote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:8-10)
end quote;
Good grief…so it’s bad enough that Calvin puts forth the notion that his god created some humans for death and torture; you’re claiming that humanity is merely a bunch of mindless robots put here to be empty vessels programmed to carry out some lazy god’s will? I can’t even put into words the level of silliness that ranks as to me…
So is death and torture apparently…
In what way?
It is no part of Plato’s thought that the appetitive and assertive parts of the soul only come into existence when the soul “descends” to earth, or that the soul by itself is purely rational. That’s a much later Neoplatonist addition to what Plato said. It becomes a definitive doctrine in Plotinus, who lived and died 500 years after Plato.
From Philosophy 101
and Wikipedia says that the appetitive is that part of the soul concerned with
These desires can only occur when the soul is bound to the body and is in search of earthly pursuits. The whole point of the allegory of the charioteer is to demonstrate that this part of the soul must be mastered if is to rise to the divine.
This part of the soul is made manifest only by being bound to a physical body.
As Steiner writes in Christianity As Mystical Fact
It is my purpose to educate myself. Any statement of mine that you say is an attempt at profundity I have no doubt picked up from reading others and agreeing with what they say. I’m afraid that there is not much that is original in what I write here. Just as when I wrote, The one is in the many.. After posting that I was reading Phaedrus because of KN’s more recent comments, and I came across this quote from Socrates:
Now whether I had previously obtained this idea from Socrates or Zeno or Heraclitus I don’t remember. But I do know that it would probably have been one of the above who got me to think about this idea. It was not an original thought of mine. The internet is a mighty source of inspiration.
And a mighty source of nonsense, too. One needs the wisdom to tell the difference.
CharlieM,
Just so you know, blindly agreeing with every nonsensical Steiner utterance isn’t actually a good way of educating oneself. I mean, it’s amusing to others, but that’s neither here nor there.