Hellfire texts explained as annihilation

[Soma-Sight]

The state of mind that a person is in on his deathbed is the stae that will exist through all of eternity. And that's why deathbed confessions are taken so seriously. If a person has not admitted the truth about his sins and relieved his conscience, his legacy will be unredeemed throughout all of eternity. It can never go away. That is hell.

Aye Carumba.... :roll:

Hope your not too stoned on morphine at this point.... lol....

 

[Free]

This argument usually is the 'last resort' argument used by traditionalists when biblical support fails. The 'God revealed the truth to the Greeks, not the Hebrews' view.

Are you saying that the Greeks didn't receive revelation not given to the Hebrews and added nothing to the Christian understanding of God, Christ, or metaphysics in general beyond that given in Hebrew Scripture?

More importantly: Did Ellen G White receive revelation that wasn't given to the Hebrews?

 

[Drew]

I also believe that there are "philosophical / empirical" reasons to doubt the existence of an immaterial soul (I believe that I do not need to explain how the question of the existence of an immortal soul is relevant to the issue of annihilation).

At the risk of being presumptive, I will suggest that many Christians use the word soul as a kind of vague placeholder and would be hard pressed to articulate exactly what they mean by the term. I would be interested to hear how "soul-believers" express the content of this concept.

I will take a crack at this myself: I believe the soul to be essentially the phenomenology of first person experience - the ensemble of sensations, emotions, and thoughts which constitute our experience of ourselves. I also believe that there are reasons to believe that there is no immaterial soul, no ghost in the machine if you will.

One reason to doubt the immaterial soul is the evidence of an extremely intimate connection between physical states and the phenomenology of being a human being. If a neurosurgeon electrically stimulates the brain, s/he elicits a wide range of sense and emotional responses. To me, this is significant evidence that the ensemble of experiences that I call the "soul" is really just phenomenological accompaniment to physical states of the brain. It suggests (but by no means proves) that the soul cannot be "teased apart" from the physical person and enjoy an independent existence.

Another humdinger of a philosophical problem is the famous "interaction" problem. If one posits an immaterial, non-physical entity called the "soul", how (in a conceptual sense) can such an entity play a causal role in the world, as I assume most Christians would claim? How can a "non-physical" entity reach across the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the immaterial and the physical and cause any physical effects. This is a big problem, which I have found many Christians ignore, deeming it to be irrelevant philosophy.

Having said what I have said, I myself believe that our understanding of the nature of human persons is still incomplete. Notwithstanding what I have written above, I do not think that we are "machines", at least in the normal sense of this word. To avoid a long post, I will say some more in a second post.

 

[Drew]

I also happen to accept that "free will", as conceived common-sensically, is indeed real. This creates a huge challenge for someone like me who doubts the existence of an immaterial soul. How do I avoid the counter-argument that if I deny the soul, there is no "place" to put free will? Similarly, if "free will" is not an illusion, it cannot really be "physical" in the normal way we think of physical things. Why? Because our present conception of physical law is one where all events are determined by the mindless, person-less, laws of physics. I think many people believe that free will is an illusion, since it does not fit well with the conventional physicalist picture of the world.

Yet I think it is not an illusion.

My response would be to say that I think that the way we model our world requires revision. In order for me to retain belief in free will, I need to say that there is "something" about the human person that is "pure mind" if you will, not slavishly obedient to the laws of physics. Unless there is part of me that is truly a "me" that floats free of dictates of physical law, there is no free will.

So I do not have an answer. But I do not think my position about free will is contradictory with my previous post. I believe that human beings cannot be teased apart into two distinct parts - a body and a "soul". However, I can still claim that our fundamental conception of our world needs some more work. I speculate that there is indeed more to this world than "atoms" and "personless, physical forces". If we were to correctly understand things, we would see that "free personhood" is woven into the fundamental nature of things. Perhaps the "mechanically physically" is alll we have made sense of to this point. But this does not mean that the physical and phenomenological aspects of being a human do not point to a single underlying unified reality - a reality that includes "free will personhood", but not in a manner that can be teased apart from the other aspects of personhood.

There may well be flaw of reasoning in what I have written - I am making this stuff up as I go.

 

[guibox]

Are you saying that the Greeks didn't receive revelation not given to the Hebrews and added nothing to the Christian understanding of God, Christ, or metaphysics in general beyond that given in Hebrew Scripture?

Yes, that's what I'm saying, at least as far as biblical knowledge goes (you know, that sort of stuff we're supposed to follow as Christians?). No doubt it was influential in the intertestamental Jewish culture, but I don't believe that any 'new light' was given that wasn't already in agreement with the OT.God will not contradict His word. New light doesn't mean contradiction.

Perhaps you skimmed over my last response (accidentally of course), so I will post it again:

"It doesn't take into account the fact that the NT doesn't emphasise anything different. Paul agrees with Job about sleeping until the resurrection. Christ's word's echo Daniel's on the resurrection to life and judgement. The NT Christian concept of Hades was a continual application of the Hebrew Sheol. The usage of the term 'soul' to denote a 'human being' was still carried over into the NT.

Your ultimate problem, Free is that the NT doesn't contradict, but reaffirms the true nature of man and the resurrection to eternal life promoted in the OT."

Hence, the NT agrees with the OT, not Greek dualism.

More importantly: Did Ellen G White receive revelation that wasn't given to the Hebrews?

:-D Oh my! We are getting desperate aren't we? EGW wasn't given 'new revelation'. She did receive further insight to already existing information. There is a difference. I really don't see the relevance here (unless you are going to agree and believe in EGW. :wink: )

Anyway, we are straying from the topic at hand.

Bottom line: Until you can accept the biblical truth that the wicked do not have immortal 'souls' or 'bodies' or whatever, you will never see the clear teaching that they cannot be tormented for eternity.

 

[Free]

You'll all have to forgive me for not responding to all your points being made. For the last couple of weeks I've had to put in a lot of overtime at work and just don't have the energy to spend. But I'll delve into it in the coming week, hopefully.

I do want to address these points made by Drew:

At the risk of being presumptive, I will suggest that many Christians use the word soul as a kind of vague placeholder and would be hard pressed to articulate exactly what they mean by the term. I would be interested to hear how "soul-believers" express the content of this concept.

I agree that there is a vagueness associated with the word "soul". The Bible uses three interesting terms that have bearing on this discussion - soul, spirit, and heart. I haven't delved into it much, but I suspect that the term "soul" as it is commonly used would be a little more akin to the biblical use of "heart," although the two are certainly not entirely distinct.

Another humdinger of a philosophical problem is the famous "interaction" problem. If one posits an immaterial, non-physical entity called the "soul", how (in a conceptual sense) can such an entity play a causal role in the world, as I assume most Christians would claim? How can a "non-physical" entity reach across the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the immaterial and the physical and cause any physical effects. This is a big problem, which I have found many Christians ignore, deeming it to be irrelevant philosophy

This is actually not a problem at all for Christians, or anyone for that matter. To say that there is a problem presupposes materialism not theism. As Christians we believe there is a spiritual world that constantly interacts with us and can affect us - God, Satan, angels and demons are all believed to be able to put thoughts in our heads and influence us for either good or evil; angels and demons are said to materialize and de-materialize and be able to move physical objects; etc.

In other words since these immaterial beings can affect the physical world, even our brains, there is no problem with believing that if we contain an immaterial entity that it should also be able to interact with our physical bodies.


guibox,

I think you need to read more of Christ's words, a little more closely too.

 

[guibox]

guibox,

I think you need to read more of Christ's words, a little more closely too.

I do, my friend.

I read Christ's words in speaking about Lazarus saying...

"'Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but we go that I may awake him out of his sleep.'.

Then putting it plainly,

"'Lazarus is dead'.

This corresponds completely with the rest of scriptures that compare death with a 'sleep'.

Then I read the words of Christ in John 6 where he says,

"He that believeth in me hath everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day"

This corresponds completely with Paul's statements of resurrection to eternal life and not at death.

I read Christ's words in John 14:1-3

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again so that where I am, ye may be also"

And in Revelation...

"Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me to give EVERY man"

This corresponds completely with Paul's words in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 and the rest of scripture that show that our reward is given at the resurrection when Christ comes, and not to an immaterial 'soul' at death.

I read Christ's words that say...

"He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son, hath not life"

This corresponds completely with Romans 6:23 and John 3:16 that show that the wicked do not have eternal life and are still mortal. Hence they cannot be tormented for eternity in any fashion.

No, Free, I DO read the words of Christ and believe them.

The question is, do you? Or do you choose to hang on to your Catholic/Greek theology that is not supported by the scriptures and undermines the salvation history of God to man?

By superimposing your preconceived, Greek notion of the immortality of the soul, you rob the necessity of the resurrection to life and the culmination of Christ as supreme king and Savior of mankind, realized in His coming to claim His own and come into His kingdom.

 

[Drew]

Another humdinger of a philosophical problem is the famous "interaction" problem. If one posits an immaterial, non-physical entity called the "soul", how (in a conceptual sense) can such an entity play a causal role in the world, as I assume most Christians would claim? How can a "non-physical" entity reach across the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the immaterial and the physical and cause any physical effects. This is a big problem, which I have found many Christians ignore, deeming it to be irrelevant philosophy

This is actually not a problem at all for Christians, or anyone for that matter. To say that there is a problem presupposes materialism not theism. As Christians we believe there is a spiritual world that constantly interacts with us and can affect us - God, Satan, angels and demons are all believed to be able to put thoughts in our heads and influence us for either good or evil; angels and demons are said to materialize and de-materialize and be able to move physical objects; etc.

In other words since these immaterial beings can affect the physical world, even our brains, there is no problem with believing that if we contain an immaterial entity that it should also be able to interact with our physical bodies.

I do not believe that this counter-argument works but the reasons are subtle. In addition, we get into some interesting and complicated issues related to what it means for us to have a model of the world. It is also possible that Free and I are not really discussing the same subject.

Let's say that "Fred" claims that there is a physical world made of atoms and laws such as gravity and that there is also a "spiritual" world made up of, for example, "souls". For Fred, the human person is a physical body that is somehow "animated" by a soul. Fred needs to be careful to understand how these two worlds are specified and ensure that his overall model does not contain unworkable contradictions.

Fred gets into trouble when he claims that the two domains in question are different "in substance" (and this, I think, is what most "traditional" Christians believe). The issues here are very subtle. I think it is fairly clear that when one commits to this distinction of "substance" one necessarily has to give up on interaction between the two domains. Why? Because, when we actually do the work of analyzing the concept of "physical substance", we realize that it is an empty concept when stripped of all "conventional" physical interactions - there is simply "nothing left" for the immaterial soul to "push".

Consider the mass of a proton. This physical concept of mass derives from observations of how such a particle behaves when subjected to force - in other words, how much they resist when pushed. Despite a natural tendency to think of "mass" as "physical stuff", we need to delve deeper and realize that it, and other elements of our model of the physical world, are really defined "operationally" - the essence of the concept lies in its utility in describing and predicting the behaviour of the world around us.

So it is simply explanatorily incoherent to talk about immaterial souls "pushing" physical buttons" if you will. One simply cannot be true to a carefully analyzed picture of what it means to be physical (to have "mass", for example) and claim, that soul-stuff can "push it around".

Think about the concept of a "ghost". Part of what it means to be a ghost is to be able to pass through physical walls without interacting with them. In order to legitimately lay claim to the ability to go through walls, the proponent of the "ghost" concept has to pay an "explanatory" cost - he has to give up on interactions between the ghost substance and the physical world. If the proponent then tries to claim that the ghost can pick up a glass, we should all cry "foul" - the proponent wants to have his cake and eat it too. This, I think, is the kind of thing going on when people talk about immaterial souls animating physical bodies.

This is not to say that I accept the conventional "physicalist" picture of the world as complete. I do not. I believe in the existence of God. So I think our "model" of reality is incomplete if there is not a place for God or things like "free will". However, and this is the crux of the matter, while I have no "model" to offer, I can recognize unworkable ones. And a model where immaterial entities interact with material entities is simply not a workable model.

 

[Drew]

An afterthought to explain where I am "coming from":

I think it is more "honest" to abandon efforts to trying to "glue" the physical world" to a "spiritual world" that is different in substance. Rather than force an awkward and unworkable marriage of these two domains, we need to step back and start from scratch. If I had to speculate, I would say that a "monistic" (single-substance) model of the Universe "exists", although we may not have the capability to discover it. It may only exist in the mind of God.l

 

[yesha]

I still think that guibox and Georges are quite wrong in insisting on a simple definition of "soul". A reading of all the 625 occurrences of nephesh in the OT will show that there are quite a large number of definitions and nuances that cannot be ignored. It really is not so simple.

Consider it's usage in lev 19:21, 21:1, 11. Num 5:2, 6:6, 11, 9:6,7,10. ect...

 

[CP_Mike]

You'll all have to forgive me for not responding to all your points being made. For the last couple of weeks I've had to put in a lot of overtime at work and just don't have the energy to spend. But I'll delve into it in the coming week, hopefully.

I do want to address these points made by Drew:

At the risk of being presumptive, I will suggest that many Christians use the word soul as a kind of vague placeholder and would be hard pressed to articulate exactly what they mean by the term. I would be interested to hear how "soul-believers" express the content of this concept.

I agree that there is a vagueness associated with the word "soul". The Bible uses three interesting terms that have bearing on this discussion - soul, spirit, and heart. I haven't delved into it much, but I suspect that the term "soul" as it is commonly used would be a little more akin to the biblical use of "heart," although the two are certainly not entirely distinct.

[quote:d4e78]Another humdinger of a philosophical problem is the famous "interaction" problem. If one posits an immaterial, non-physical entity called the "soul", how (in a conceptual sense) can such an entity play a causal role in the world, as I assume most Christians would claim? How can a "non-physical" entity reach across the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the immaterial and the physical and cause any physical effects. This is a big problem, which I have found many Christians ignore, deeming it to be irrelevant philosophy

This is actually not a problem at all for Christians, or anyone for that matter. To say that there is a problem presupposes materialism not theism. As Christians we believe there is a spiritual world that constantly interacts with us and can affect us - God, Satan, angels and demons are all believed to be able to put thoughts in our heads and influence us for either good or evil; angels and demons are said to materialize and de-materialize and be able to move physical objects; etc.

In other words since these immaterial beings can affect the physical world, even our brains, there is no problem with believing that if we contain an immaterial entity that it should also be able to interact with our physical bodies.


guibox,

I think you need to read more of Christ's words, a little more closely too.[/quote:d4e78]

Hi Drew,
Coming back to your point on the 'soul, spirit, heart', for the Hebrews and NT, the centre of consiousness was the heart, not the soul. There is obvious overlap between all 3 as personhood in Hebrew thinking was a unity or totality.

Here is an excerpt from "workshop" seminar on the nature of personhood. 'Workshop' is an excellent teaching course I attended and this part of the seminar which explains what soul, spirit and heart is.

Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.
Leb - Kardia - Heart
'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.
It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-
• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].
• Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling [Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].
• Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38].
• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as
well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].
The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings.
What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].
Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-
• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16].
• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].
So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.
Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.
The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.
The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.
'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.

 

[guibox]

Great post, CP_Mike.

When one truly takes the time to look at the context and the meanings of these words it is pretty hard to read the Greek dualistic view in man. And yet, so much of Christendom influenced by church leaders who in turn have been influenced by Platonic thinking, still do.

Luckily, many are breaking out of this false error to see the truth of the scriptures for what they are.

When you understand the nature of man as the bible teaches it, these false doctrines fall by the way side to be trampled by the believer...and you are free!

1) Purgatory
2) Instant rewards at death
3) Ghosts and spirits
4) Limbo
5) Eternal torment
6) Out of body experiences
7) Soul travel
8) Praying to dead saints and ancestors

Such doctrines are the fruits of Satan's second lie in the garden, "Ye shall not surely die". He has been snaring humanity in this false doctrine ever since.

 

[Drew]

Hi CP_Mike:

Thanks for your content-rich post. It is good to see real efforts to bring the level of discourse up a notch from the level of "argument" one sees in these forums so often. I believe that I say this notwithstanding the fact that we apparently share the same general view on this topic.

I think it is fair to say that both you and guibox are much more learned than me about the Scriptures and the relevant historical context. If you have read some of my other posts, you will probably find that I come at this issue from a perspective where isssues of explanatory power, internal consistency, coherence with known physical facts, and intuitive appeal (e.g. simplicity) etc. are additional considerations (not to suggest that you and guibox do not do this as well). So, for example, I draw distinctions between "substance" and "phenomenology"in trying to construct a workable model of the human person. And I believe that I empathize with what I understand to be a move away from "substance dualism" in the secular philosophical community.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has attempted to synthesize biblical, cultural, and "philosophical / scientific" arguments into a single case against the immortal soul position.

 

[guibox]

I think it is fair to say that both you and guibox are much more learned than me about the Scriptures and the relevant historical context. If you have read some of my other posts, you will probably find that I come at this issue from a perspective where isssues of explanatory power, internal consistency, coherence with known physical facts, and intuitive appeal (e.g. simplicity) etc. are additional considerations.

If it's any consolation, Drew, I read your posts and then go, 'Heh?' and then read them over again and again. It's been too long since my last philosophy class...and science? I'm Mr.What's Electricity?.

So you do contribute with one side of the argument that I know I can't. :wink:

 

[Drew]

An afterthought to explain where I am "coming from":

I think it is more "honest" to abandon efforts to trying to "glue" the physical world" to a "spiritual world" that is different in substance. Rather than force an awkward and unworkable marriage of these two domains, we need to step back and start from scratch. If I had to speculate, I would say that a "monistic" (single-substance) model of the Universe "exists", although we may not have the capability to discover it. It may only exist in the mind of God.l

I imagine you are suggesting a monism only of the created order? Or are you suggesting a monism of everything, both God and the created order?

If you were suggesting a monism of the second kind, there would presumably be a question as to whether this belief is compatible with Christianity.

Greetings Decypher:

I would guardedly answer by saying that I am indeed suggesting a monism of the created order.

While I have not given the matter any real thought, I wonder whether a monism of the "second kind" is really inconsistent with Christianity. The reason I say this: It is not inconceivable that the picture provided in the Scriptures of a God who is "independent" of his creation might be a "simplification" for our benefit.

 

[DivineNames]

I would guardedly answer by saying that I am indeed suggesting a monism of the created order.

A quote on Advaita-

"The final teaching of Advaita on causation - that no causal relation can be established between Brahman and the world, in that the world as affect must be only an appearance of Brahman and not something put forward by it as a substantial reality - does seem to be sound ... From the phenomenal standpoint, within which any causal connection would be established, Brahman and the world are different in kind; qualitatively, they are incommensurable. In order to set forth a causal relation between two things, a minimum requirement is that they be of the same order of being. One cannot reason legitimately from an effect back to a cause when the efect is formed and the cause is formless, when the effect is time-bound and the cause is timeless, and so on. In short, one cannot establish relations between disparate levels of being: one can only trace the generation of these levels back to the thinking subject as it relates to the world and account for the manner in which they arise in terms of axiological and noetic considerations. And this is precisely what Advaita Vedanta does in its criterion of subration and in its doctrines of maya, avidya, and adhyasa.

Assuming the meaningfulness of the notion of Brahman, the final teaching of vivartavada would seem to be the correct answer to any question concerning the relation that obtains between Brahman, Reality, and the world of multiplicity, Appearance. It insures the non-dual character of Brahman and, although it does not actually explain the world in terms of the world, it shows how it makes its appearance in experience. What is a loss to strict intellectual satisfaction might nevertheless be a gain to that love of wisdom, which, after all, still has something to do with what we call philosophy."

(Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction)

If you are going to be consistent about what you are saying, do you not have to go for a strict monism?

 

[DivineNames]

While I have not given the matter any real thought, I wonder whether a monism of the "second kind" is really inconsistent with Christianity. The reason I say this: It is not inconceivable that the picture provided in the Scriptures of a God who is "independent" of his creation might be a "simplification" for our benefit.

If you have an absolute identity with God, it appears that this does/could involve a radically different view of reality than theism. We would not seem to actually be "creatures" created by God in that case. Instead, the situation looks as if God decides to entertain himself by entering into an illusion. Enter into the illusion of living out millions of separate lives, before "they" realize that they are really only God playing this game.

Is this compatible with Christianity? I suspect not.

 

[Bick]

Drew, in reading through all your posts on page 7 of this thread, I must say you have certainly done some deep thinking. Your views concerning interpreting scripture are excellent.

And, following the important rules of exegesis, I'm convinced that man's soul is not immortal, it is the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.

For want of space and time, I will quote only a number of hundreds of verses in which "soul' is used:

Gen.2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
NOTICE: It doesn't say a separate soul was joined to a body.

Many times, man is called a 'soul' in the Scriptures:
Gen.12:5 "Abram took his wife....and the souls they had gotten in Haran."
Gen.46:26 "...All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt.."
Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:and the same day there were added about three thousand souls."
Acts 2:43 "And fear came upon every soul..."
See also: Acts 7:14; 27:37; Rom.2:9; 13:1; 1 Cor.15:45; James 5:20

Many times the soul is said to die or be dead:
Num.23:10 "Let me (my soul) die the death of the righteous."
Josh.10:28 "And that day Joshua took Makkedah and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof....and all the souls therein."
See also: Josh.10:30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11; Jer.2:34; Ezek.13:19, 22.

The soul can be destroyed, taken away:
Lev.23:30 "...that same soul will I destroy from among his people."
See also: 1 KI.19:10; Psa.31:13; Prov.1:19; Ezek.22:27; 33:6; Acts 3:23

There are so many verses referring to the soul doing this or that, being hungry and eating food, being thirsty and drinking, loving, praising, singing. etc, everything having to do with his consciousness, his thoughts, his feelings.

All for now, Bick

 

[mutzrein]

Forgive me for not keeping up with the heady nature of this thread. A lot of it is really beyond me - but since, by the look of it, there are so many learned people participating I thought I would ask a simple question. Have we established that hell exists? . . . and if it does, have we established who goes there?

Thanks

 

[Vic C.]

I believe most of us would agree it exists. The main question at hand (which you pointed out) is; who will go there, why and for what duration... duration being the key element in this discussion.