[Guest]

In the religious debate thread the topic of hell has come up a couple times. It's certainly relevant to the issue of belief in God since apparent inconsistencies in the character of the biblical God are often highlighted by atheists as a reason for disbelief, eternal torment in hell by a supposed God of love being a common one. However, as the moderator pointed out, a discussion of the religious doctrine and the biblical basis for it is outside the scope of that thread. Fair enough, but I would like to continue the discussion.

As I described in my last post on the subject, I believe that "hell" as used in the Bible refers to the common grave of mankind, to which both righteous and wicked people go. In other words, it's basically the state of being dead, as opposed to being alive. Since individuals in the Bible are described as being brought back to life (i.e., resurrected), it would follow that such a hell is not a permanent state. I also explained that I believe that the scriptures that refer to Gehenna and the "lake of fire" refer to eternal destruction, a judgment which does not have the hope of restoration to life. So an individual who is figuratively thrown into the "lake of fire" is dead for good. End of story. I provided a few scriptures to support those views in that post, but if you would like more, let me know. I'd be happy to oblige.

Obviously, I am well aware that this is not the mainstream Christian view of what "hell" means. However, when I asked people to explain why they believed as they did, nobody actually provided any reasons. One atheist stated that the Bible couldn't serve as a basis for belief, but it shouldn't take long to realize that doesn't make much sense. It's fine if he doesn't accept the Bible as inspired by God, but if a person does, then wrong or not, it's logical for him or her to form beliefs regarding the afterlife based on what the Bible says. What I'm really trying to point out, however, is that most religious people who claim to base their belief on the Bible can't actually use it to explain their beliefs. And further, I believe that this applies not only to individuals but to the great majority of Christian churches. There are so many church doctrines, hellfire included, which are based on church traditions and incorporation of the beliefs of other religions, rather than the Bible. Therefore, just as the thrust of the argument about the existence of God revolved around establishing a logical basis for one's opinions, I would like to see a logical discussion, based on the Bible or otherwise, for why you do or don't believe in Hell, and if so, what you believe it to mean.

Any takers?

[Guest]

"I believe that People who tried to be good during their life, despite their religion, Go to Heaven.

If they were delibritly VERY bad, they suffer forever in hell.

If they were kind of neutral, they go to purgatory to repent, and eventually go to heaven"

Can you express what your belief is based on?

Well, I belive that God is God, and doesn't really care what religion you are, Just that you tried to be good while you are alive.

I do however belive that people like Adolf Hitler, don't make it into Heaven, so They go somewhere else. (Hell)

If you where a moderately bad person, but were still good, you have to make up for being bad, so thats where purgatory comes in.

[Guest]

Do you believe that God is a Spirit in the sense of an immortal, not-physical living entity?

Yes. That's exactly what Jesus said at John 4:24.

Incidentally, being a spirit does not necessarily make God immortal, although other scriptures clearly show that he is. I should clarify that I'm using 'immortality' in the sense of indestructibility, although in common usage it often refers to beings which are self-sustaining and do not die naturally, but can be destroyed (imperishable, as used at 1 Cor 15:42). In any case, God would obviously fit both descriptions, while angels would be imperishable, but not necessarily immortal in this strict sense, since they could still be destroyed as punishment for rebelling against God (as would happen to Satan, Rev 20:10).

If so, then why do humans not have a spirit? I have always understood that a spirit was one of the main differences between men and animals.

Does God have a spirit, or is God a spirit? As you'll see when you wade through the details of that last comment, the word "spirit" has a great variety of uses. However when we talk about belief that God is a spirit, we understand that to mean he is a non-physical entity. On the other hand, he is often described as using his spirit (holy spirit) to accomplish things, such as create animals (Ps 104:30). While there is certainly a difference between animals and humans (animals never had the prospect of eternal life), both are described as having a spirit which represented their life-force. For example:

Ps 104:29 shows that the animals themselves have spirit which can be taken away, resulting in death: "If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go."

Eccl 3:19 "For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit."

If humans can kill the body but can't kill the soul, then there must be some kind of a soul.

I did explain fairly directly what I believe Jesus meant by that statement, but I should have noted that the "soul" as used here is not referring to the living, breathing being, which man can kill, but to the life of that one, which remains in God's hands. Jesus made this clear in his reply to the Sadducees (who did not believe in a resurrection) at Luke 20:37,38: "But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." Jesus showed that these individuals, although they had not yet been resurrected, were alive to God. Their physical "souls" had certainly died, but their life, complete with all their memories, was in safe keeping with God, and would be restored at a later time. In that sense their "souls" had not died.

Also, the majority of the verses you gave to support the soul being immortal have to do with God being able to kill the soul. I would agree that God can most certainly kill the soul since he created it.

You're right, but that's hardly representative of the use of soul (nephesh) in the Old Testament. I don't have time now, so I'll just refer you back to the wikipedia article on the topic. Check out the sections Man, as being "cut off" by God; and as being slain of killed by man and Man as being mortal, subject to death of various kinds, from which it can be saved and delivered and life prolonged.

A interesting problem with having no Soul or Spirit, if there was nothing immortal in the human body, then when we are raised to life, will we remember life on earth? Will we even be ourselves since no part of ourselves had experienced the things that make us ourselves?

There are nine resurrections recorded in the Bible, other than Jesus. In every case the one who returned to life was the same person who had died, and it appears evident that their memories were in tact. Your question seems to indicate that God is incapable of restoring a person's memories. Does that make sense?

We have a good proof that God is capable of restoring the entire person. Consider the memories Jesus would have had from his pre-human existence in heaven. As the first creation by God and a participant in the creation of the universe, Jesus would have been alive for at least billions of years, if not predating time itself. The scriptures are not clear on the manner or extent to which these memories were transferred to Jesus human brain, but it seems likely that the opening up of the heavens described at the time of his baptism referred to his having access to his heavenly existence (it wouldn't have been very practical for him to have those memories as a child). That he spent the next 40 days meditating in the wilderness makes particular sense in view of the amount of information he would have had to sort through. So where were Jesus' memories in those 30 years between his birth and the commencement of his ministry? It would appear that they were in God's memory. Jesus made a point of saying that God knows every little detail about us, including the number of hairs on our head. Is it stretching to think that when he resurrects dead ones, whether to earthly or heavenly life, he is able to restore all of the relevant details about them?

[Guest]

I have to beleive in a hell. The thought that people like Hitler, Timmothy McVey and the fagget hippie that touched me when I was a child will get off scott free really sucks.

[Guest]

That John 4:24 verse makes my point excellently.

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Observations:

#1- God is spirit (pneu′ma I believe). Since you just said that you believe that God is a immortal (indestructible) and since this word refers to God, wouldn't you say that this word conceivably could be a spirit that is immortal (in either the sense of imperishable or in the sense of indestructible) other places and not only in instances when it is referring to God?

#2 His (God's) worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. So if God's worshipers can worship in spirit, isn't assumable that they are, or at least partly are, spirit?

In 1 Samuel 28, Saul asks a Spirit medium to bring up a dead person, Samuel. If people aren't spirit, and once they die, they cease to exist, than how could a mere human not only create a person, but give them all their memories, and if they could do this, why do it at all since it seems likely that the Spirit medium would have access to all the memories themselves.

There are tons of verses about 'spirit' that don't seem to make sense to me if it is just translated 'life' or 'breathe'

here are a very few for example

Luke 1:17 "And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Doesn't it seem logical that John would have the spirit of Elijah not the life or breath of Elijah? Don't you think this is taking about his power and possible about his relationship with God?

Galatians 5:16-17

"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."

How can life desire something?

Romans 8:15

"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”"

Again, life, I believe, can't give you anything. It is nothing more than life.

[Guest]

I believe that there is definitly a Hell... the reason being? In 7th grade, for a whole year demons were halfway possessing me. Halfway because I was a firm Christian and I wouldn't let them get a hold of me. Whoever thinks Hell can't be on Earth, you're wrong.

That year I would have sick twisted demonted dreams (that I'd rather not explain, but if you want me to, I will) and when I'd wake up, voices in my head were saying, "The end is peace," I was standing there with a knife to my wrists or throat... There were two months in that year of school where I wouldn't speak barley... I was so frightened...

I prayed so much that year, and that year, I taught myself how to meditate.... Every demon left when I kept meditation and prayer in my life... especially prayer. A year after that I was completely washed away with the presence of God. He is all I am living for! He is the reason that I am myself...

Have I had doubts since then? You bet. This is Earth. We are the centerpeice in between Heaven and Hell. There are temptations all around, but also the true feeling that if you have faith enough, you will be with your Father.

Since that year I've helped eleven people out of suicide and have brought six to christ... everything happens for a reason.

[Guest]

A number of your questions seem to arise from the fact that both soul and spirit are used in a variety of manners. I'll try to clarify ...

#1- God is spirit (pneu′ma I believe). Since you just said that you believe that God is a immortal (indestructible) and since this word refers to God, wouldn't you say that this word conceivably could be a spirit that is immortal (in either the sense of imperishable or in the sense of indestructible) other places and not only in instances when it is referring to God?

Anytime "spirit" is used as a noun to refer to a being, such as God or an angel, it follows that it's talking about the invisible individual, complete with personality and thinking, and as far as we can tell, it would appear that all spirit creatures are imperishable, so to answer your question ... yes, it's not just possible, it certainly is the case. When used in this manner, referring to the individual as a spirit is similar to the usage of soul, except that it cannot refer to a physical being. You cannot say of a physical human: "he is a spirit", but you can say "he is a soul."

#2 His (God's) worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. So if God's worshipers can worship in spirit, isn't assumable that they are, or at least partly are, spirit?

Notice what one commentary states on this: "Our worship should be suitable to his nature. We should worship him with the truly spiritual worship of faith, love, and holiness, animating all our tempers, thoughts, words, and actions."

Actually, isn't it clear that worshiping in spirit (or with spirit, as some translations word it) cannot be a reference to a conscious component of the human? If it was, what would it mean to worship in spirit? That the immortal thinking part of you worships while the body just goes for the ride? And the usage of the phrase "in spirit and truth" makes it clear that we're talking about the manner of the worship, not some part of the person.

In 1 Samuel 28, Saul asks a Spirit medium to bring up a dead person, Samuel. If people aren't spirit, and once they die, they cease to exist, than how could a mere human not only create a person, but give them all their memories, and if they could do this, why do it at all since it seems likely that the Spirit medium would have access to all the memories themselves.

Very interesting account, that one. Consider a few questions:

1. What did God say about contacting the dead? Deut 18:10-12

2. If God prohibited the practice, then why would a righteous dead man such as Samuel consent to be summoned by a "witch"?

3. The 'spirit of Samuel' correctly predicted that the Israelites and Saul would fall to the Philistines. As a prophet, Samuel had received his prophetic knowledge of the future from God. Why would God continue to enable him to foretell the future via a practice he had condemned? Wouldn't that just be condoning necromancy?

4. Why do you suppose God felt so strongly that occult practices (sorcery, fortune telling, necromancy, etc.) were "detestable"?

It makes sense when you consider what the Bible says about demons. They were previously angels, but had chosen to rebel against God and come down to earth to take women for themselves, as described at Gen 6:4. 1 Pet 3:19,20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 all speak of these disobedient angels. When Revelation 12:7 talks about the war in heaven, it talks about Satan and "his angels." These are obviously the "demons" that Jesus and the apostles cast out of individuals. These same superhuman beings have a long history of trying to trick people into believing lies that lead them away from God. Hence, they have often pretended to be the spirits of those that have died, thereby corroborating belief in the notion of immortal souls.

Earlier in the thread, BoscoRanger asked a good question, though: "How do spirit sightings, ghosts, fit in?" On the religious debate thread, FollowingMyDreams made the interesting observation: "If there is a heaven and hell ... then why are there ghosts? I mean, did heaven and hell spit them out and say 'you're neither good nor bad... so you get to haunt people'"? It's actually a relevant point when you think about it. I believe the answer is that "ghosts" are not dead people at all, but the demons pretending to be dead people, as happened in the account with Saul and 'Samuel.'

There are tons of verses about 'spirit' that don't seem to make sense to me if it is just translated 'life' or 'breathe.'

I'll requote the reference work that explained that spirit "can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit." In fact, it's used even more vaguely than that at times, referring to a dominant attitude, much in the same way that we today will talk about someone being in "good spirits":

1 Cor 2:12 - "Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God."

Eph 2:2 - "You at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience."

In the first case, the spirit of the world is contrasted with God's holy spirit. In Ephesians, the spirit of Satan's system is likened to air, a pervasive attitude that permeates the entire world alienated from God.

"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."

How can life desire something?

Come on now, let's not leave out the helpful context:

vs. 16: "But I say, Keep walking by spirit and you will carry out no fleshly desire at all."

vs. 22: "The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, ..."

vs. 25: "If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit."

There is obviously a contrast between what we are inclined to do by our sinful nature, and what we are inclined to do when motivated by God's spirit. In any of these other uses of "spirit," does it make sense to conclude it's talking about a conscious, immaterial component of a human? Therefore, when it talks about the desires of the spirit, it's reasonable that it's talking about the desires of one influenced by God's spirit.

Romans 8:15

"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”"

Once again, look at the preceding verse:

vs. 14: "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

Clearly the "spirit" of sonship they received is not talking about their immortal soul, but God's spirit operating within them. Perhaps the verse that was in question was the following one:

vs. 16: "The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children."

What is "our spirit" in this case? It clearly can't be talking about the breath of life. Consider the import. Paul is saying that when God's spirit comes upon them, they would know for a certainty that they had been selected by God as adopted sons. God's spirit would "bear witness" with their spirit, or the mental disposition within them, so that there was no question in their mind. With complete confidence, they would know that God had chosen them.

Notice a similar use of "spirit" (although in a completely different context) at Eph 4:23: "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind." Notice what a commentary says regarding that: "... that is, be made new by having a new mind, or spirit."

So, while spirit is used in many different ways, there still aren't any instances that are clearly referring to a conscious, immaterial component of a human.

[Guest]

Sometimes we may use spirit and mind interchangeably when we shouldn't. Is that the bottom line?

So one would have

· Spirit of God dwelling within us.

· Mind

· Body/ soul

If we look at "Matt 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul [psy‧khen′] and body in Gehenna,". God can destroy the body and soul. Two different things.

I go back to the thief on the cross. Jesus told the thief this day you will be with me in paradise. The soul can't be part of the body else Jesus lied. If there is no soul why mention hell at all.

Mat 16:27 "For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angles: and then he shall reward every man according to his works" look at Mat 16:26 too. The soul doesn't die a physical death or how would he receive his due.

Edited May 3, 2008 by BoscoRanger

[Guest]

Sometimes we may use spirit and mind interchangeably when we shouldn't. Is that the bottom line?

So one would have

· Spirit of God dwelling within us.

· Mind

· Body/ soul

If we look at "Matt 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul [psy‧khen′] and body in Gehenna,". God can destroy the body and soul. Two different things.

Please review what I wrote and nowhere will you see that I equated the soul with the body. The soul is the living being, comprised of body and spirit (breath of God). I realize there was a lot to sort through, so I understand that all that stuff isn't going to just click into place. However, let me repeat what I said is meant by nephesh and psykhe: "the living being itself (human or animal), or the life of the being."

As I explained, Matt 10:28 is showing that man can kill the body, but cannot destroy the life of the person, because God can resurrect him. If you're going to insist that this scripture is referring to an immortal component of man, then you'd have to explain the bajillion other scriptures that talk about the soul dieing, being killed, etc.

I go back to the thief on the cross. Jesus told the thief this day you will be with me in paradise. The soul can't be part of the body else Jesus lied.

The thief would be in paradise when he is resurrected to that place by God. No reason his soul couldn't die in the meantime, just like all the other billions of people who died.

If there is no soul why mention hell at all.

Not sure what you mean by that. As I've said, the Biblical use of "hell" is simply referring to the common grave of mankind, the place where everyone goes when they die.

Mat 16:27 "For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angles: and then he shall reward every man according to his works" look at Mat 16:26 too. The soul doesn't die a physical death or how would he receive his due.

It's called resurrection. Jesus and Paul both talked about it quite a bit, and to prove it's for real, they both even demonstrated it by resurrecting dead people.

John 5:28,29: "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

Acts 24:15: "I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."

[unreality]

For those that believe in Hell, isn't it a bit hypocritical toward the "forgiveness" of your religion? Or is it okay to not forgive "non-believers" even if they led good lives? Just curious.

And do you really think it's a place full of fire and red-skinned horned humanoids poking you with pitchforks? If it does exist, I doubt it- that sounds more of like a metaphor to me.

And what evidence do you have that Hell exists other than your holy book? Just curious if anyone has anything that's actually substantial. I can see how people view their holy book, say the Bible, as holy evidence once they've already established that the god of their religion exists, but it can't be used as proof that said deity exists, know what I mean?

Also... how does anyone deserve INFINITE suffering for a FINITE crime? What horrible thing can a person do that requires ETERNAL torment? Seriously... think about that. Think about the meaning of ETERNAL! What deed could you possibly do on earth that sanctions that kind of cruelty and injustice? Also, eternal torture would get boring after a while... it wouldn't be much torture after long.

This is all hypothetical reasoning of WHAT IFs, just showing more holes in the teachings of most religions. "Heaven" and "Hell" are nothing more than the "Carrot" and the "Stick" to get the "Donkey" to do what you want- it wants the carrot and doesn't want the stick. It's a scare tactic and a bribe. "If you do what we want you to do, you go to Heaven. Otherwise you go to Hell. So be good! Do what we say!" See what I mean?

[Guest]

For those that believe in Hell, isn't it a bit hypocritical toward the "forgiveness" of your religion? Or is it okay to not forgive "non-believers" even if they led good lives? Just curious.

And do you really think it's a place full of fire and red-skinned horned humanoids poking you with pitchforks? If it does exist, I doubt it- that sounds more of like a metaphor to me.

And what evidence do you have that Hell exists other than your holy book? Just curious if anyone has anything that's actually substantial. I can see how people view their holy book, say the Bible, as holy evidence once they've already established that the god of their religion exists, but it can't be used as proof that said deity exists, know what I mean?

Also... how does anyone deserve INFINITE suffering for a FINITE crime? What horrible thing can a person do that requires ETERNAL torment? Seriously... think about that. Think about the meaning of ETERNAL! What deed could you possibly do on earth that sanctions that kind of cruelty and injustice? Also, eternal torture would get boring after a while... it wouldn't be much torture after long.

This is all hypothetical reasoning of WHAT IFs, just showing more holes in the teachings of most religions. "Heaven" and "Hell" are nothing more than the "Carrot" and the "Stick" to get the "Donkey" to do what you want- it wants the carrot and doesn't want the stick. It's a scare tactic and a bribe. "If you do what we want you to do, you go to Heaven. Otherwise you go to Hell. So be good! Do what we say!" See what I mean?

I think some of the problem with Hell is mans idea of what it is. The first and major fault in ideas of hell is that we take "Dantes Inferno" as truth.....it was just a flippin book written by a man. Unlike the Bible it was not ordained by God. Just my opinion.

[unreality]

That's what I was saying... the whole "fiery torture pit" sounds like BS, was essentially what I was saying in that paragraph... glad you agree

and the Bible was written by people too, just so you know. There's nothing except priests and popes to say that "God influenced the Bible" and they just get their info from... *drumroll*... the Bible! It's just a flippin book ;D

[Guest]

That's what I was saying... the whole "fiery torture pit" sounds like BS, was essentially what I was saying in that paragraph... glad you agree

and the Bible was written by people too, just so you know. There's nothing except priests and popes to say that "God influenced the Bible" and they just get their info from... *drumroll*... the Bible! It's just a flippin book ;D

Your right, the Bible is also just a book, but a damn good one, one that should be used as a guideline for good living. And, I personaly do believe that God had a lot to do with its writing. I think his spirit guided the hands of the men that wrote it. Again, this is my opinion, one that I dont expect all to agree with. To each their own.

[itachi-san]

Out of curiosity, why do you believe God stopped with the Bible? Why didn't he influence a book last century for instance? The Bible is so old that it has been completely subjugated and altered by many different political institutions for their own personal purposes.

One of my points is that now we have a much more comprehensive method of recording history and broadcasting it around the world so that people usually get the truth or at least the truth is intermixed in a bunch of lies, but it is available nonetheless. I find it too convenient that the book that God had a lot to with happened only once and in a time that just happened to be before any advent in mass information distribution.

Another point to the Bible being the one and only, is that God would have seen that has been altered and aged. Why has He made no attempt to bring it back to its original form or make it more current and accessible to people of this technological day and age?

Would this be similar to idea that Hell exists in that God is really not a forgiving being and is easily provoked by us? As unreality said: if you commit a finite crime, you get eternal damnation. So with the Bible, is this the same vengeful God we are seeing? "I gave you the Word, you altered and manipulated it, so now I'm going to pout, ignore you and not help you people anymore"? I would think that a being that held the characteristics of God would be above such pettiness and would want to continue to guide the people he created.

[Guest]

For those that believe in Hell, isn't it a bit hypocritical toward the "forgiveness" of your religion? Or is it okay to not forgive "non-believers" even if they led good lives? Just curious.

And do you really think it's a place full of fire and red-skinned horned humanoids poking you with pitchforks? If it does exist, I doubt it- that sounds more of like a metaphor to me.

And what evidence do you have that Hell exists other than your holy book? Just curious if anyone has anything that's actually substantial. I can see how people view their holy book, say the Bible, as holy evidence once they've already established that the god of their religion exists, but it can't be used as proof that said deity exists, know what I mean?

Also... how does anyone deserve INFINITE suffering for a FINITE crime? What horrible thing can a person do that requires ETERNAL torment? Seriously... think about that. Think about the meaning of ETERNAL! What deed could you possibly do on earth that sanctions that kind of cruelty and injustice? Also, eternal torture would get boring after a while... it wouldn't be much torture after long.

This is all hypothetical reasoning of WHAT IFs, just showing more holes in the teachings of most religions. "Heaven" and "Hell" are nothing more than the "Carrot" and the "Stick" to get the "Donkey" to do what you want- it wants the carrot and doesn't want the stick. It's a scare tactic and a bribe. "If you do what we want you to do, you go to Heaven. Otherwise you go to Hell. So be good! Do what we say!" See what I mean?

If you think it is unfair for someone to suffer for an infinite amount of time, isn't it unfair for some one to go for heaven for an infinite amount of time? Isn't unfair that some one not only gave up his life, not only gave up his place in heaven, but descended into hell (or if you don't believe in hell he at least went to the grave, and it is my opinion that he was separated from God for three days). Life isn't fair.

Personally, I believe that the worst part of hell is being separated form God, which would never get 'boring.'

As we (mostly Duh Puck) have debated on the religious debate thread, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for some supernatural being. From there, you could make a guess that this supernatural being has made himself known in some way. So perhaps, we could look at all the religions and all the evidence for and against all of them and come up with the best conclusion. Personally, that is Christianity for me and as part of that, I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and as such, is infallible.

[Guest]

A number of your questions seem to arise from the fact that both soul and spirit are used in a variety of manners. I'll try to clarify ...

Anytime "spirit" is used as a noun to refer to a being, such as God or an angel, it follows that it's talking about the invisible individual, complete with personality and thinking, and as far as we can tell, it would appear that all spirit creatures are imperishable, so to answer your question ... yes, it's not just possible, it certainly is the case. When used in this manner, referring to the individual as a spirit is similar to the usage of soul, except that it cannot refer to a physical being. You cannot say of a physical human: "he is a spirit", but you can say "he is a soul."

Notice what one commentary states on this: "Our worship should be suitable to his nature. We should worship him with the truly spiritual worship of faith, love, and holiness, animating all our tempers, thoughts, words, and actions."

Actually, isn't it clear that worshiping in spirit (or with spirit, as some translations word it) cannot be a reference to a conscious component of the human? If it was, what would it mean to worship in spirit? That the immortal thinking part of you worships while the body just goes for the ride? And the usage of the phrase "in spirit and truth" makes it clear that we're talking about the manner of the worship, not some part of the person.

Very interesting account, that one. Consider a few questions:

1. What did God say about contacting the dead? Deut 18:10-12

2. If God prohibited the practice, then why would a righteous dead man such as Samuel consent to be summoned by a "witch"?

3. The 'spirit of Samuel' correctly predicted that the Israelites and Saul would fall to the Philistines. As a prophet, Samuel had received his prophetic knowledge of the future from God. Why would God continue to enable him to foretell the future via a practice he had condemned? Wouldn't that just be condoning necromancy?

4. Why do you suppose God felt so strongly that occult practices (sorcery, fortune telling, necromancy, etc.) were "detestable"?

It makes sense when you consider what the Bible says about demons. They were previously angels, but had chosen to rebel against God and come down to earth to take women for themselves, as described at Gen 6:4. 1 Pet 3:19,20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 all speak of these disobedient angels. When Revelation 12:7 talks about the war in heaven, it talks about Satan and "his angels." These are obviously the "demons" that Jesus and the apostles cast out of individuals. These same superhuman beings have a long history of trying to trick people into believing lies that lead them away from God. Hence, they have often pretended to be the spirits of those that have died, thereby corroborating belief in the notion of immortal souls.

Earlier in the thread, BoscoRanger asked a good question, though: "How do spirit sightings, ghosts, fit in?" On the religious debate thread, FollowingMyDreams made the interesting observation: "If there is a heaven and hell ... then why are there ghosts? I mean, did heaven and hell spit them out and say 'you're neither good nor bad... so you get to haunt people'"? It's actually a relevant point when you think about it. I believe the answer is that "ghosts" are not dead people at all, but the demons pretending to be dead people, as happened in the account with Saul and 'Samuel.'

I'll requote the reference work that explained that spirit "can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit." In fact, it's used even more vaguely than that at times, referring to a dominant attitude, much in the same way that we today will talk about someone being in "good spirits":

1 Cor 2:12 - "Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God."

Eph 2:2 - "You at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience."

In the first case, the spirit of the world is contrasted with God's holy spirit. In Ephesians, the spirit of Satan's system is likened to air, a pervasive attitude that permeates the entire world alienated from God.

Come on now, let's not leave out the helpful context:

vs. 16: "But I say, Keep walking by spirit and you will carry out no fleshly desire at all."

vs. 22: "The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, ..."

vs. 25: "If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit."

There is obviously a contrast between what we are inclined to do by our sinful nature, and what we are inclined to do when motivated by God's spirit. In any of these other uses of "spirit," does it make sense to conclude it's talking about a conscious, immaterial component of a human? Therefore, when it talks about the desires of the spirit, it's reasonable that it's talking about the desires of one influenced by God's spirit.

Once again, look at the preceding verse:

vs. 14: "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

Clearly the "spirit" of sonship they received is not talking about their immortal soul, but God's spirit operating within them. Perhaps the verse that was in question was the following one:

vs. 16: "The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children."

What is "our spirit" in this case? It clearly can't be talking about the breath of life. Consider the import. Paul is saying that when God's spirit comes upon them, they would know for a certainty that they had been selected by God as adopted sons. God's spirit would "bear witness" with their spirit, or the mental disposition within them, so that there was no question in their mind. With complete confidence, they would know that God had chosen them.

Notice a similar use of "spirit" (although in a completely different context) at Eph 4:23: "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind." Notice what a commentary says regarding that: "... that is, be made new by having a new mind, or spirit."

So, while spirit is used in many different ways, there still aren't any instances that are clearly referring to a conscious, immaterial component of a human.

To me it makes perfect sense to talk about a conscious, immaterial component of a human. And doesn't it make sense that if God's spirit can talk to us the we have a spirit with which Gods spirit can talk?

You called humans a spirit (" God's spirit would "bear witness" with their spirit, or the mental disposition within them, so that there was no question in their mind. With complete confidence, they would know that God had chosen them.") So what exactly is the difference between a spirit (which a human cannot be called) and a mental disposition? This still looks to me like we have a spirit (our spirit).

In regard to the spirit medium: Just because God condemns something doesn't mean it won't happen. That would mean there would be no sin. Also, where do demons live if there is no hell? Do they just live on the earth all the time?

I guess I just don't understand how you can discount all this by saying that God is a spirit, that humans aren't spirit and don't have any kind of spirit in them. I am super thick headed or what?

[Guest]

I am super thick headed or what?

Heh. No, I seriously doubt you're thick headed, but then again, I've never seen your head.

I can understand your hesitance to accept what I'm suggesting. Perhaps for most of your life you've believed a teaching that is accepted by 99% of religious people. I would expect you to be reasonably skeptical when someone tells you it's not based on the Bible, but I also hope that you sincerely investigate it as a real possibility. If you've been reading the Bible for years, then each time you saw "soul" or "spirit", you would have had in mind an immortal soul, and as a result, you'd think that the support for this teaching in the Bible is much greater than it actually is.

First off, just to save myself typing, anytime I refer to an "immortal soul", I'm talking about an immaterial conscious component to a human which lives on after the body dies, which is the essence of most religious belief about the soul.

To be fair, there are many scriptures which would still make sense if the spirit or soul they spoke of was such an immortal soul. For example, referring back to Romans 8:16: "The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children." This scripture would certainly make sense if "our spirit" was referring to an immortal soul (although it should be noted that there are obviously two different meanings for spirit in that scripture, no matter how you interpret it). Similarly, when Matt 10:28 says that man can kill the body but not the soul, it would of course make sense if the soul spoken of there was an immortal soul, and perhaps it may even seem like a more natural understanding of the scripture. Therefore, for me to provide alternate explanations for these scriptures does not directly prove my argument, which is that the Bible does not teach that we have an immortal soul.

However, if you get stuck on those scriptures which could have multiple interpretations, you're kinda missing the larger point. There are sooo many other scriptures which make it clear what the Bible generally means by the words soul and spirit, and what happens to us when we die, that it would be a major leap to conclude these certain verses teach the belief of an immortal soul. If you consider that the great majority of the scriptures where "soul" is used clearly refer to living physical beings (animals and humans), or to the life they possess, and that "spirit" usually refers quite clearly either to the life force God gives to all living creatures (the breath of life, which returns to God at death), his holy spirit, or our dominant mental disposition, then why would you be inclined to interpret the remaining unclear verses as referring to an immortal soul? I think it's fair to say that the only reason they would be unclear in the first place is that you approached them with a preconceived notion about the nature of the soul.

Now for your specific statements ...

To me it makes perfect sense to talk about a conscious, immaterial component of a human.

I should make it clear that the "immortal soul" I'm arguing against is that which lives on after we die. Is the entire consciousness of a person therefore contained within the physical human mind, i.e., in the brain? I think there's good reason to believe that it is, but the Bible doesn't specifically comment on that. (Part of my logic: Does a person with brain damage have a separate, fully functional and undamaged immaterial conscious component? When people are in a coma, does their spirit continue thinking? Do they wake up from the coma with clear memories of their thoughts during that time? Usually no, but occasionally yes, and in such cases the mental activity would show up on a MRI of their brain, so it would appear that all conscious thought is discernible as measurable brain activity.) However, if that theory is wrong, and there is a conscious immaterial component to a human, that wouldn't conflict with Bible teaching as long as it ceased to function at death (Psalms 146:4, Eccl 9:5). For the purpose of our discussion, however, I will refer to everything we associate with conscious thought as being the "mind," regardless of whether or not the entire functionality resides in the physical brain.

And doesn't it make sense that if God's spirit can talk to us the we have a spirit with which Gods spirit can talk?

If the spirit is a specific component of you, would it then in turn have to take what God's spirit told it and pass it along to your mind? I'm sure that's not what you had in mind when you asked the question, but it shows the difficulty of treating the spirit as a separate entity. Similarly, when God's spirit affects you, such as by producing within you the fruits of the spirit (Ga 5:22,23), what does his spirit influence, your spirit or your mind? The question doesn't make sense if there is only one part of you responsible for thought.

Consider a related topic: prayer. When you pray, what is God actually listening to? Your physical brain is obviously connected to your thinking as you pray, and God is able to read your thoughts. Doesn't it make sense that if God can read your mind, he could communicate with it and even manipulate it by means of his spirit?

You called humans a spirit (" God's spirit would "bear witness" with their spirit, or the mental disposition within them, so that there was no question in their mind. With complete confidence, they would know that God had chosen them.") So what exactly is the difference between a spirit (which a human cannot be called) and a mental disposition? This still looks to me like we have a spirit (our spirit).

Actually, I didn't call humans a spirit, just as you would not say a person is a mental disposition, but I did say that the scripture indicates that we have a spirit, in the sense that we have a mental disposition. There are other examples of this use of spirit. For example, at Psalms 51:10-11, after showing repentance for his terrible sins, David asked God: "Create in me even a pure heart, O God, and put within me a new spirit, a steadfast one. 11 Do not throw me away from before your face; And your holy spirit O do not take away from me." He obviously wasn't asking for a new immortal soul, but for God's spirit to create within him a new mental disposition in harmony with God's will. In verse 17, he used "spirit" similarly: "The sacrifices to God are a broken spirit; A heart broken and crushed, O God, you will not despise."

In regard to the spirit medium: Just because God condemns something doesn't mean it won't happen. That would mean there would be no sin.

That's true. The explanation I provided doesn't rule out the possibility that it really was Samuel that appeared, but the questions I posed were designed to show that it would be highly unlikely. If it was sinful for Samuel for to be summoned by a spirit medium and for God to grant him foreknowledge to pass on to Saul, who exactly was sinning? Further, that there were spirit mediums around in the first place meant that this supposed communication with the dead was a common practice (just as it is today, incidentally). Does this whole system of communication by dead people with humans really make sense? On the other hand, it all does make sense when you understand that the occult practices that God forbids involve communication with fallen angels who are trying to turn people away from God, and who have the ability to mislead in a convincing manner. Although the Jews as a people did not believe in an immortal soul, Saul decided to contact the spirit medium anyhow, in direct disobedience to God's law, which was a clear indication of his fallen and desperate spiritual condition. In such a state, separated from God's love and guidance, he was more susceptible to being deceived by the religious practices of the surrounding nations.

Also, where do demons live if there is no hell? Do they just live on the earth all the time?

Yes, that's exactly what the Bible says:

Revelation 12:7-10 - "And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: 'Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ.'"

So yes, Satan and the disobedient angels are restricted to living on Earth, unable to return to heaven. Verse 10 showed that this action demonstrated the authority of Christ who was ruling in God's kingdom, so it had to take place after Jesus was resurrected to heavenly life. This is supported by the account of Job:

Job 1:6,7 - "Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them. 7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where do you come from?” At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “From roving about in the earth and from walking about in it.”

So at the time of Job, Satan (and the other fallen angels) were still able to move back and forth between heaven and earth.

I guess I just don't understand how you can discount all this by saying that God is a spirit, that humans aren't spirit and don't have any kind of spirit in them.

I hope I cleared that up. We do have within us the breath of life, we have a disposition of the mind, and God can grant us his holy spirit, which can operate within us by affecting our mind.

Wow, this was really long, once again. Sorry. Did that help?

[akaslickster]

I always thought that being dead is the same as it was before one was alive. Total nothingness. So I chose cremation.

[itachi-san]

I always thought that being dead is the same as it was before one was alive. Total nothingness. So I chose cremation.

So are you a spirit entity that now lives in cyberspace? Maybe that's Hell

[Guest]

I always thought that being dead is the same as it was before one was alive. Total nothingness. So I chose cremation.

Was cremation painful?

Since that's basically the same as what I've been saying is taught by the Bible, I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. From what I've seen, all the major religions (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, etc.) teach that we have an immortal soul. Do you belong to a particular religion?

[itachi-san]

Was cremation painful?

Since that's basically the same as what I've been saying is taught by the Bible, I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. From what I've seen, all the major religions (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, etc.) teach that we have an immortal soul. Do you belong to a particular religion?

I'm a bit confused. Do you mean the body or the person is nothing before and after life? I would have thought that you believe that the body is nothing: that it's just a vessel. But that you believe in the soul that inhabits the vessel.

I believe that the body was essentially nothing and will return to that state as well after decomposition (a vessel). But as you know, I believe that life will still exist, as will whatever experiences we have added to its collective. Since the body is essentially nothing, I too want to be cremated.

Edit: I took out the word eternal before soul, because I noted that you believe the soul dies and has to be resurrected.

Edited May 5, 2008 by itachi-san

[Guest]

I'm a bit confused. Do you mean the body or the person is nothing before and after life? I would have thought that you believe that the body is nothing: that it's just a vessel. But that you believe in the soul that inhabits the vessel.

I believe that the body was essentially nothing and will return to that state as well after decomposition (a vessel). But as you know, I believe that life will still exist, as will whatever experiences we have added to its collective. Since the body is essentially nothing, I too want to be cremated.

My previous explanations were long and rambling, and the idea of an immortal soul is almost universal in religion, so I can understand the confusion.

Let me try it sum it up simply:

Jehovah's Witnesses (which is the religion I belong to) believe that the human is a soul, that is, a living physical being animated by God's spirit. That spirit, or breath of life, was provided by God to begin with, but is thereafter transmitted by physical means via procreation. In other words, God doesn't have to step in and magically add something at the moment of conception to make a human. Once conceived, a human is a soul. Consequently, when the physical processes break down and the person dies, the soul dies, as that life principle is no longer present. However, the Bible says that God resurrects people back to life, either back to human form, or as a spirit. Therefore, it's reasonable to think of the body as a vessel, since God can create a new body, physical or spiritual, and restore to it that same life, memories and all. Cremation, getting smashed by a truck, or getting eaten by worms in the grave would not be a hindrance to that happening.

A lot of the questions surrounding this belief seem to stem from the question: Where is the person (the mind, if you will), between the death of the body and the resurrection? The simple answer to that would be: nowhere, except in God's memory. Some people have said, well, if you're in God's memory, then your soul's not really dead, just sleeping (a doctrine called "soul sleep"). That's actually a fairly reasonable way to look at it, but it can be confusing. If the soul is not truly dead, is it conscious? Just because God took a snapshot of you for the purpose of restoring you to life later on doesn't mean that you're therefore "alive" in the usual sense, since there's no breath of life, physical or spiritual, enabling conscious thought. It seems easier, then, to just paint it black and white and say that when you're dead you're dead. You are no longer a living soul.

That's my belief in a nutshell. The pages of explanation were designed to show that this is, in fact, what the Bible says, and not just some hare-brained idea of some religious nuts (although you of course may still think we're nuts for believing the Bible ).

[Guest]

In the religious debate thread the topic of hell has come up a couple times. It's certainly relevant to the issue of belief in God since apparent inconsistencies in the character of the biblical God are often highlighted by atheists as a reason for disbelief, eternal torment in hell by a supposed God of love being a common one. However, as the moderator pointed out, a discussion of the religious doctrine and the biblical basis for it is outside the scope of that thread. Fair enough, but I would like to continue the discussion.

As I described in my last post on the subject, I believe that "hell" as used in the Bible refers to the common grave of mankind, to which both righteous and wicked people go. In other words, it's basically the state of being dead, as opposed to being alive. Since individuals in the Bible are described as being brought back to life (i.e., resurrected), it would follow that such a hell is not a permanent state. I also explained that I believe that the scriptures that refer to Gehenna and the "lake of fire" refer to eternal destruction, a judgment which does not have the hope of restoration to life. So an individual who is figuratively thrown into the "lake of fire" is dead for good. End of story. I provided a few scriptures to support those views in that post, but if you would like more, let me know. I'd be happy to oblige.

Obviously, I am well aware that this is not the mainstream Christian view of what "hell" means. However, when I asked people to explain why they believed as they did, nobody actually provided any reasons. One atheist stated that the Bible couldn't serve as a basis for belief, but it shouldn't take long to realize that doesn't make much sense. It's fine if he doesn't accept the Bible as inspired by God, but if a person does, then wrong or not, it's logical for him or her to form beliefs regarding the afterlife based on what the Bible says. What I'm really trying to point out, however, is that most religious people who claim to base their belief on the Bible can't actually use it to explain their beliefs. And further, I believe that this applies not only to individuals but to the great majority of Christian churches. There are so many church doctrines, hellfire included, which are based on church traditions and incorporation of the beliefs of other religions, rather than the Bible. Therefore, just as the thrust of the argument about the existence of God revolved around establishing a logical basis for one's opinions, I would like to see a logical discussion, based on the Bible or otherwise, for why you do or don't believe in Hell, and if so, what you believe it to mean.

Any takers?

First, let me say I have no absolute belief one way or another in re hell. It is not something that troubles me. I am a Christian, God loving, so no worries either way. However, your take on it being a common grave for mankind fits better with the literal definition of the word, as I understand it, as used in the language it was written. The fiery hell we have all come to know, I believe, finds its origin with Dante's writings, doesn't it? I don't believe that early followers ever believed in a fiery, burning hell, did they? I cannot recall any scripture supporting that belief.

[akaslickster]

So are you a spirit entity that now lives in cyberspace? Maybe that's Hell

No sometimes I forget to log off and people think by my name there, so am I. Just getting busy with some work. Hell may be or not. I don't think about it anymore. I'm donating myself upon death so what's left can burn on earth or where ever.

[akaslickster]

Was cremation painful?

Since that's basically the same as what I've been saying is taught by the Bible, I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. From what I've seen, all the major religions (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, etc.) teach that we have an immortal soul. Do you belong to a particular religion?

Negative.

More and more now accept cremation instead of burial. I no longer practice religion. What was,was......

[Guest]

First, let me say I have no absolute belief one way or another in re hell. It is not something that troubles me. I am a Christian, God loving, so no worries either way. However, your take on it being a common grave for mankind fits better with the literal definition of the word, as I understand it, as used in the language it was written. The fiery hell we have all come to know, I believe, finds its origin with Dante's writings, doesn't it? I don't believe that early followers ever believed in a fiery, burning hell, did they? I cannot recall any scripture supporting that belief.

Interestingly, the doctrine of eternal punishment had roots in pagan religions much older than Christianity. Here's a quote from the reference work "Insight on the Scriptures":

The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a “hell” of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under “Hell” says: “Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment.” The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the “nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the “Other World” as featuring “pits of fire” for “the damned.”

At the bottom of this page, which discusses the declining popular belief in hellfire, there is some information on the gradual incorporation of hellfire into the corrupted Christian church, starting not long after the apostles died at the end of the first century C.E.

Turns out there's also an article about the immortal soul on that website: Do You Have an Immortal Spirit?

Well, I guess you can check to see if what I said was consistent with what my religion teaches.

One thing I have discovered after further research ... I was wrong to say that the Jews of Jesus' day did not believe in an immortal soul. Apparently the Jews had already started to incorporate the beliefs of the surrounding Greek and Persian cultures, as can be seen from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. I guess it's not surprising that Jesus called their religious leaders blind guides. In any case, that doesn't change the point that such a teaching was not supported by the scriptures, particularly not the scriptures the Jews had at the time (the Old Testament).