soul???

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The "body" *is* the physical aspect of the person. I don't see a difference between "resurrection of the body" and "physical resurrection of the body" -- can you think of non-physical variations?

Your "follow up" of the implications of the latter simply referred to some unspecified past concerns you claim to have raised. Could you summarise them again?

difference between "resurrection of the body" and "physical resurrection of the body" -- can you think of non-physical variations?
I did pre-empt this one with: If you say "but how can resurrection not be physical?" then following from what you believe about this resurrection at the end of the world then so far no one who has ever died has ever re-manifested it's essence in the afterlife by virtue of the fact it is not yet the end of the world

what this means is that if we assume physical resurrection at the end of the world to be true and only this to be true such that we can avoid certain problems(to make my argument simpler I'll refer to this hypothesis as P ^ E where P is the truth of *physical ressurection* and E the truth of *end of the world*) ...then no one who has ever died so far has yet been resurrected such that until now all dead people are just recycled worm food...they do not exist...they cannot exist in spirit by virtue of the fact that in order to avoid any tricky spots you state that they do not. (I am not happy with Knightmeister's insta-go to end of the world upon death idea... I already shared my views on the concept of time, I would argue that such views are both rational and efficient...his response (that I will answer shortly) needs better explanation and justification to sway me here)

If on the other hand this is not true, Ie ¬(P ^ E) we must deal with two scenarios
E ^ ¬P or P ^ ¬E

1)E ^ ¬P In this scenario we still have the idea that resurrection of some sort will happen at the end of the world and that it is a spiritual one (or at least, not physical)....we therefore have to answer the questions asked in my original post. You could however try to sneakily escape this problem by saying "well yeah they get resurrected at the end of the world as spirits but before then they are resurrected as physical entities elsewhere" (or whatever you would say...If you do have a get-out clause here please state it. (I do have a counter to that one example I just gave...but I would prefer to hear your own response)

2)P ^ ¬E In this scenario, firstly Apostle's Creed is incorrect and secondly given that we are not resurrected at the end of the world we should be informed (with justification) when this event actually will occur...additionally, if this resurrection does not happen immediately after death then what exactly is it that is being resurrected (as our now dead physical bodies start to decompose)...where is our soul hiding until such time and what state does it exist in? (your answers here will of course prompt further questions)

Your "follow up" of the implications of the latter simply referred to some unspecified past concerns you claim to have raised. Could you summarise them again?

Either my original post, or read up to the point where you travel down the road of " the soul not needing any supernatural connotations with it"

Originally posted by knightmeister
" To say that time is an entity that can be used analogously with a soul however, is something I would argue is not really justified.
A soul on the otherhand is supposed to be an entity and therefore if it is physical then it should surely be detectable by some mechanical means!...if supernatural, by what process does it manipulate physical entities in Christ or the Holy Spirit ?, it's all there for anyone to read, it's not a secret!

A soul is an entity . It's you. YOU are a soul. For Christianity the physical is not nearly as real as the spiritual which lies beyond it. You ARE a spiritual being , it's just you've forgotten that you are. All religions teach that we need to be enlightened or wake up in some way to another reality or realm of existence.You've been watching too many re runs of Ghost with Patrick Swayze! The soul is not a separate thing from you it's who you are and who you can become if you allow the spirit of God to get to work on you

Read my original post again please Knightmeister...your problem here is linked to the second paragraph of that post...for your view on this ignore it and concentrate on the others.

As to the process? that is what Christianity is all about. Haven't you heard of growth in Christ or the Holy Spirit ?, it's all there for anyone to read, it's not a secret!

I want details...fine details...details that are rational to me as one who is highly skeptical of the supernatural...details that are not offered in your bible

Originally posted by knightmeister
So where are we whilst it is *not* the end of the world and we are dead? are we supernatural/spiritual beings? do we cease to exist?

The answer is that the moment we die we go straight to the end of the world. It's instantaneous. After death time has no meaning . We all go to the end of the world at the same time, even though we die at different poi to the idea that God can see what you are doing tomorrow without having to "wait" a day.

The answer is that the moment we die we go straight to the end of the world. It's instantaneous. After death time has no meaning . We all go to the end of the world at the same time, even though we die at different points in time. This sounds bizarre I know but it's a simple time paradox if you think about it . Once you die you transcend time so you don't have to wait for "time to pass" for others to go to the end of the world/ressurection. This is similar to the idea that God can see what you are doing tomorrow without having to "wait" a day.

I would need a rational explanation backed up with evidence (independent of the bible/qu-ran/Gospel of the FSM) in order to buy into this concept of time-travel and pre-determined future concept you are offering...otherwise it just seems convenient and off the cuff.

Originally posted by Agerg
I would need a rational explanation backed up with evidence (independent of the bible/qu-ran/Gospel of the FSM) in order to buy into this concept of time-travel and pre-determined future concept you are offering...otherwise it just seems convenient and off the cuff.

We're clearly discussing religious beliefs and not philosophy here -- I don't see why he cannot quote from the Bible if he wants to.

EDIT: Besides, philosophically there is no reason to reject the "direct to end of time" view.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]difference between "resurrection of the body" and "physical resurrection of the body" -- can you think of non-physical variations?
I did pre-empt this one with: If you say "but how can resurrection not be physical?" then following from what you believe about this resurrection at the end of the world then so far no one who has ever died has ever re- l down the road of " the soul not needing any supernatural connotations with it"[/b]

Most of your posts deal with the ~(P^E) situation which I do not espouse, so I'll rejoin the thread you've taken up with km.

Originally posted by Agerg
I want details...fine details...details that are rational to me as one who is highly skeptical of the supernatural...details that are not offered in your bible

Why? Can't you just accept that the finer mechanisms of some things are just not known to us at the moment?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We're clearly discussing religious beliefs and not philosophy here -- I don't see why he cannot quote from the Bible if he wants to.

EDIT: Besides, philosophically there is no reason to reject the "direct to end of time" view.

We're clearly discussing religious beliefs and not philosophy here -- I don't see why he cannot quote from the Bible if he wants to. we are but my questions (until resolved) run counter to his or anyone-elses belief...throwing at me verse whatever and then engineering his interpretation of this quotation to provide some hopefully adequate answer to my new problem simply won't wash...under these circumstances I could refer to the Gospel of the FSM for a different idea of the truth

EDIT: Besides, philosophically there is no reason to reject the "direct to end of time" view....I didn't outright say "you are wrong knight-meister" I simply stated that I want vastly better justification even for just instantiating the concept

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why? Can't you just accept that the finer mechanisms of some things are just not known to us at the moment?

Because unfortunately...my experience and sensation of the physical world I live in runs counter to this soul idea...I at least want a credible and justified argument with adequate supporting *evidence* (not necessarily proof) given to support such things you take as axioms...without such I shall tend towards the opinion that the whole concept itself is unfounded

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]We're clearly discussing religious beliefs and not philosophy here -- I don't see why he cannot quote from the Bible if he wants to. we are but my questions (until resolved) run counter to his or anyone-elses belief...throwing at me verse whatever and then engineering this quotation to provide some hopefully adequate answer to my new problem simply won' ...[text shortened]... y stated that I want vastly better justification even for just instantiating the concept[/b]

we are but my questions (until resolved) run counter to his or anyone-elses belief...throwing at me verse whatever and then engineering this quotation to provide some hopefully adequate answer to my new problem simply won't wash...

It will because you are examining the tenets of his (our?) belief system. We already accept that you don't share it; you are trying to convince him/us that our view is incoherent. If it isn't internally inconsistent, it isn't -- and you'll simply have to accept that. If it isn't inconsistent with known facts about the world, it isn't -- and you'll simply have to accept that as well.

The Gospel of FSM may say something else, but we're not talking about the beliefs of FSM-ists here.

You and I started talking about the philosophical notion of 'soul' as espoused by Aquinas and I stated at the outset that it didn't require supernatural connotations. If you've now taken the discussion into the realm of religion you have already accepted the axioms of that religious system (for the purposes of this discussion). As long as the system itself is internally consistent you can't try to tie km's/my hands behind our back by now asserting that we cannot have recourse to the axioms of that religious system. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Agerg
Because unfortunately...my experience and sensation of the physical world I live in runs counter to this soul idea...I at least want a credible and justified argument with adequate supporting *evidence* (not necessarily proof) given to support such things you take as axioms

Actually it doesn't. The fact that you can say "my experience" at all indicates something you consider essential to yourserlf (which I call 'soul'😉 that remains constant despite other changes to yourself over time.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]we are but my questions (until resolved) run counter to his or anyone-elses belief...throwing at me verse whatever and then engineering this quotation to provide some hopefully adequate answer to my new problem simply won't wash...

It will because you are examining the tenets of his (our?) belief system. We already accept that you don ve recourse to the axioms of that religious system. You cannot have it both ways.[/b]

You and I started talking about the philosophical notion of 'soul' as espoused by Aquinas and I stated at the outset that it didn't require supernatural connotations. If you've now taken the discussion into the realm of religion you have already accepted the axioms of that religious system (for the purposes of this discussion). As long as the system itself is internally consistent you can't try to tie km's/my hands behind our back by now asserting that we cannot have recourse to the axioms of that religious system. You cannot have it both ways.

Please bear in mind Lucifershammer that it was your suggestion that the Aquinas system would resolve all my problems and so I let you steer the debate in this direction accepting your axioms as essential to your position (though reserving the option to challenge their justification at a later stage) whilst taking notes of anything that didn't fit along the way and pitching these problems at you a regular intervals...I also tried to prevent you from venturing into any other systems that would resolve problems that this one could not (or then remind you of the implications that another system would have with regards to what the current system tries to bypass)...your argument whilst definitely formed a lot better than certain notorious posters within this forum in other threads (I shall not name names) still leaves important loose ends...KM is steering me down his own route and with only convenient answers given I directly challenge his axioms at the offset.

*edit* additionally, I would argue that no matter how well a system works in isolation...if it must co-exist with another system then to just be *internally consistant* does not suffice. Any mention of concepts that are not axiomatic in the Physical world I live in must be justified beyond the point of being axiomatic in anyone's religious doctrine

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually it doesn't. The fact that you can say "my experience" at all indicates something you consider essential to yourserlf (which I call 'soul'😉 that remains constant despite other changes to yourself over time.

but to say that I have experienced this world is more accurate than to say *I have not experienced* this world...it indicates nothing more essential to myself than is indicated by referring to the experiences of the world by cats and dogs stated to have *no soul*

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]You and I started talking about the philosophical notion of 'soul' as espoused by Aquinas and I stated at the outset that it didn't require supernatural connotations. If you've now taken the discussion into the realm of religion you have already accepted the axioms of that religious system (for the purposes of this discussion). As long as the system itself ...[text shortened]... in must be justified beyond the point of being axiomatic in anyone's religious doctrine[/b]

Any mention of concepts that are not axiomatic in the Physical world I live in must be justified beyond the point of being axiomatic in anyone's religious doctrine

That is a different debate altogether. If you're going to ask everyone to justify (say) Christianity plus (say) the notion of soul within Christianity every time the question of the notion of soul within Christianity comes up, you're not going to find many takers. You're effectively asking them to do two debates in one.

If you want to debate the foundations of Christianity itself, I suggest you start another debate. If you want to take up just the notion of the Christian soul, there are certain basics of Christianity you will have to take as a given.

Originally posted by Agerg
but to say that I have experienced this world is more accurate than to say *I have not experienced* this world...it indicates nothing more essential to myself than is indicated by referring to the experiences of the world by cats and dogs stated to have *no soul*

If you go back and read what I wrote when I was defining the Thomistic 'soul', you'll see that I said that all living beings have souls.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Any mention of concepts that are not axiomatic in the Physical world I live in must be justified beyond the point of being axiomatic in anyone's religious doctrine

That is a different debate altogether. If you're going to ask everyone to justify (say) Christianity plus (say) the notion of soul within Christianity every time the questi ...[text shortened]... e Christian soul, there are certain basics of Christianity you will have to take as a given.[/b]

hmm...I would say I was pretty fair with you it's just that KM's rather off the cuff...we instantly go to the end of the world bypassing time altogether implies the truth of time travel and manipulation where I strongly dis-agree. That is his self evident truth that I have a problem with and believe that what he presents to me from the bible, will be an interpretation engineered to try and stop me dead in my tracks when it isn't really justified and unless I'm mistaken the bible is not the source of all knowledge when it comes to time travel and such...

I have already got a few problems with his notion already but would prefer to see how he cares to defend such an idea before I present them to him.