Christian and Proud
- Thread starter 2-0-NINE
- Start date
No, hemp is correct in what I am telling you. I am not talking about the physical body. You are thinking that destruction must have an end period, and that is more linked to Annihilationism/annihilation. Destruction and annihilation are two different things.
Think of destruction solely as a condition or state of being. Think of it as a process that has no end (just like the soul has no end.)
apollumi and aionios. These are greek words and they will possibly help you understand things a bit more clearly.
Think of destruction solely as a condition or state of being. Think of it as a process that has no end (just like the soul has no end.)
apollumi and aionios. These are greek words and they will possibly help you understand things a bit more clearly.
But neither destruction nor annihilation apply to the eternal soul. You are imposing a characteristic of material nature upon something that is entirely different. Also, if it were possible for us to suffer destruction without a material body, then why does this material manifestation need to exist? Why couldn't we exist purely spiritual and then just suffer for our mistakes without contracting some material form? Looking at things from the spiritual perspective along with this idea that the soul can suffer in itself makes the material nature superfluous. Is there a reason why we are currently different from the bodies we inhabit? If we don't require the duplicity, is it that God does? If so, why?
No, they do apply, and if you believe the soul is not eternal annihilation definately applies.
No, you simply don't understand what is being stated.
This material manifestation exists because God wills it. This material manifestation is used to house the soul. If the soul is the real "you" the soul has a purpose, the soul can also be in a state where it has no purpose or where the purpose is limited or nonfunctioning. Go back to the analogy I gave you about the car. A car is fully functioning until you crash it or total it. Once you do so it no longer serves its purpose and it is in a totalled or destroyed state. It will continue in that state until it is repaired or it is melted down and recycled.
According to your doctrine our lusts and wants is what got us here in teh first place and this is why we suffer.
Again, you don't understand the concept. You are placing a time limit on something you yourself say has no time limit. I am saying there is no time limit to being in the state of destruction.
Again, your doctrine teaches that we choose to come here and that this world was made by God in order to satisfy the desires of the soul. My doctrine states God created the world for HIS own purpose and that the purpose would be so we could give glory back to God. However, both of our beliefs state that the the flesh body is the "real" entity.
That is the way God has designed us, because God made us in his image.
No, you simply don't understand what is being stated.
This material manifestation exists because God wills it. This material manifestation is used to house the soul. If the soul is the real "you" the soul has a purpose, the soul can also be in a state where it has no purpose or where the purpose is limited or nonfunctioning. Go back to the analogy I gave you about the car. A car is fully functioning until you crash it or total it. Once you do so it no longer serves its purpose and it is in a totalled or destroyed state. It will continue in that state until it is repaired or it is melted down and recycled.
According to your doctrine our lusts and wants is what got us here in teh first place and this is why we suffer.
Again, you don't understand the concept. You are placing a time limit on something you yourself say has no time limit. I am saying there is no time limit to being in the state of destruction.
Again, your doctrine teaches that we choose to come here and that this world was made by God in order to satisfy the desires of the soul. My doctrine states God created the world for HIS own purpose and that the purpose would be so we could give glory back to God. However, both of our beliefs state that the the flesh body is the "real" entity.
That is the way God has designed us, because God made us in his image.
Whats right with it? Now assuming you believe the God of the bible exists, do you think it would be right to tempt him or test him when he already said to not do it?
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesus_sin.htm <---read this and stop resorting to trickery.
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesus_sin.htm <---read this and stop resorting to trickery.
If you believe the soul is not eternal then either you don't know what is a soul or the word "soul" means something else when you use it. As far as destruction goes, the soul contracts a material body because it desires that which is inferior to it's nature. This inferiority includes things like creation, destruction, disease and old age. If a soul could be subject to destruction without contracting a material form, then why couldn't it be also subject to creation, disease and death? And if it is subject to these things directly, then what need is there in contracting a material form in the first place? Of course, if this were the fact then there would be no soul and the idea of returning to God to live eternally in our original state would be nonsense.
You are stating that (some) souls end up in a perpetual state of destruction. Whether this destruction ends or you concoct some neverending destruction doesn't take away from the fact that destruction is a characteristic of the inferior nature.
Also, if hell is neverending destruction, does that mean Heaven is neverending creation? If so, and once again, what need is there in the material manifestation?
An eternal soul either has a purpose or it doesn't. It does not sometimes have a purpose and sometimes not. And if it doesn't have a purpose then it mightaswell be chalked up as something that eternally doesn't exist because it is due to existence that our purpose is eternally related to the eternal God. In other words, it is not possible to separate existence and purpose. Therefore an eternal existence has an eternal purpose.
I wouldn't say that the purpose itself is ever limited or nonfunctioning, but that due to material conditioning, it is not realized and so there appears to be a limitation or nonexistence of purpose.
Your car analogy applies to material manifestation, not the transcendental soul. You want to imagine some irreducible part of a car that can still be identified as "car". Even if we apply this concept to the soul, the answer is that the irreducible part itself IS the soul. Not that there is a soul that has certain parts that can be subtracted. Whatever that irreducible essence is, that is soul; that is self. We can then say, for the sake of your analogy, that the irreducible part that is "car" is in fact the soul of the car. Of course, in reality, a car does not drive unless there is a living entity operating it. So the real soul is the one that dwells within the human body (in this case) and the car is simply another vehicle to enhance the mobility function of the individual.
I already know what I follow. I am asking you based on this idea you have of material affliction directly affecting the soul without the need of contracting a material form. And I am not asking why we suffer. I am asking why it is necessary to contract a material form if we can suffer without one. If the material quality of suffering applies without need of the material form, then there should be no reason why other characteristics of material existence would not apply. "Suffering" is just a general term anyway. We can count creation, destruction, disease and old age under the heading of 'suffering'. So if we can suffer these material pangs without contracting material forms, why does the material manifestation exist?
This isn't even in response to what I wrote. I am not so much concerned with how you define "destruction" anymore. At this point it doesn't matter. What I wrote to which you responded with the above is that the material nature is superfluous if those material pangs apply without need of the material manifestation. I said nothing about time limit.
Of course, we aren't talking about what my doctrine teaches. But as for your doctrine, if we can suffer the material pangs without contracting a material form or becoming subject to the material nature, then what is stopping us from giving glory to God also without need of the material nature? Or do you say it is not possible to glorify God in His Heavenly kingdom?
Both of our beliefs state that the flesh body is the real entity? Did you mean to say that both of our beliefs state that the flesh body is not the real entity? If you feel you stated it accurately the first time, then you are mistaken. I definitely do not believe the flesh body is the real entity.
Simply saying 'that's just the way it is' is a non-answer. I am sure you believe that is the way it is, but beyond that, why is it? If I can experience the material pangs without need of the material form, then why does this duality of self and body exist? Why can't eternal souls exist and act out their desires (or even God's desires) without contracting an inferior (temporal) material form? What Personal interest can an eternal God possibly have with inferior material bodies? Especially if all the functions of the material nature apply as much so to spiritual soul.
You are stating that (some) souls end up in a perpetual state of destruction. Whether this destruction ends or you concoct some neverending destruction doesn't take away from the fact that destruction is a characteristic of the inferior nature.
Also, if hell is neverending destruction, does that mean Heaven is neverending creation? If so, and once again, what need is there in the material manifestation?
An eternal soul either has a purpose or it doesn't. It does not sometimes have a purpose and sometimes not. And if it doesn't have a purpose then it mightaswell be chalked up as something that eternally doesn't exist because it is due to existence that our purpose is eternally related to the eternal God. In other words, it is not possible to separate existence and purpose. Therefore an eternal existence has an eternal purpose.
I wouldn't say that the purpose itself is ever limited or nonfunctioning, but that due to material conditioning, it is not realized and so there appears to be a limitation or nonexistence of purpose.
Your car analogy applies to material manifestation, not the transcendental soul. You want to imagine some irreducible part of a car that can still be identified as "car". Even if we apply this concept to the soul, the answer is that the irreducible part itself IS the soul. Not that there is a soul that has certain parts that can be subtracted. Whatever that irreducible essence is, that is soul; that is self. We can then say, for the sake of your analogy, that the irreducible part that is "car" is in fact the soul of the car. Of course, in reality, a car does not drive unless there is a living entity operating it. So the real soul is the one that dwells within the human body (in this case) and the car is simply another vehicle to enhance the mobility function of the individual.
I already know what I follow. I am asking you based on this idea you have of material affliction directly affecting the soul without the need of contracting a material form. And I am not asking why we suffer. I am asking why it is necessary to contract a material form if we can suffer without one. If the material quality of suffering applies without need of the material form, then there should be no reason why other characteristics of material existence would not apply. "Suffering" is just a general term anyway. We can count creation, destruction, disease and old age under the heading of 'suffering'. So if we can suffer these material pangs without contracting material forms, why does the material manifestation exist?
This isn't even in response to what I wrote. I am not so much concerned with how you define "destruction" anymore. At this point it doesn't matter. What I wrote to which you responded with the above is that the material nature is superfluous if those material pangs apply without need of the material manifestation. I said nothing about time limit.
Of course, we aren't talking about what my doctrine teaches. But as for your doctrine, if we can suffer the material pangs without contracting a material form or becoming subject to the material nature, then what is stopping us from giving glory to God also without need of the material nature? Or do you say it is not possible to glorify God in His Heavenly kingdom?
Both of our beliefs state that the flesh body is the real entity? Did you mean to say that both of our beliefs state that the flesh body is not the real entity? If you feel you stated it accurately the first time, then you are mistaken. I definitely do not believe the flesh body is the real entity.
Simply saying 'that's just the way it is' is a non-answer. I am sure you believe that is the way it is, but beyond that, why is it? If I can experience the material pangs without need of the material form, then why does this duality of self and body exist? Why can't eternal souls exist and act out their desires (or even God's desires) without contracting an inferior (temporal) material form? What Personal interest can an eternal God possibly have with inferior material bodies? Especially if all the functions of the material nature apply as much so to spiritual soul.
I believe the soul is etrnal, but there are many people who do not believe the soul is eternal and these people believe in annihilationism.
Again, this is what your religious belief teaches and mine does not teach this. Going into this is going to lead into who is right and who is wrong. I have no time for that.
see above.
This was explained in my last post. The purpose of having a body is to house the soul. these two things are constantly warring against each other, but the soul is to lead the body and should dictate what the body does or what choices are made. They should both serve a purpose in doing what they do and that is to glorify God.
Again our beliefs differ. My beliefs teach we are given a new body like the one Yeshi had.
No destruction is not a characteristic of the inferior nature, and I'm not concocting anything. Something can be destroyed but that doesn't make it inferior. Superiority and inferiority are not determined by if something can be destroyed or not.
No, there is no teaching in my belief system that teaches heaven is never ending creation. There are however teachings that clearly state "hell" is a place of destruction, and that this place of destruction was ORIGINALLY designed/made for those who REBELLED against God. It also states that this will be the place of all souls that rebelled against God.
When it serves no purpose or has been incapacitated it is in a state of destruction.
see above.
Now you are entering the realm of annihilationism. If the soul is designed to praise God or dictate what our flesh does, but it no longer does so, it is no longer serving its intended purpose. It IS possible to seperate existence from purpose when you do not realize the purpose for your existence and don't act upon your purpose.
No, I would say that the purpose itself is limited. We are here to praise God and give him glory. That is limited. We aren't here to do all sorts of fancy things, have long drawn out conversations, party like it's 1999 etc. There isn't an appearance of limitation or nonexistence. You are either doing A or you are doing B.
Thats because you are looking at the car as the body. Think purpose...
When a soul is in a state of destruction it is still identified as a soul. It is not going to cease being a soul. It is not going to transform into something else. If a car is still identified as a car that is one thing, but when a car is melted down to its basic elements that is another. Please, don't make this more difficult than what it is. Hemp was able to grasp this after I posted it, but for some reason you want to question it. The bottom line is that you are within your right to question it all you want, but this will boil down to both of our beliefs being different and which view is right and which view is wrong.
Thats not a convo I am going to participate in.
You can use that analogy as well and it is still saying the same thing. You seem to not understand where I am going with the PURPOSE of the car. The PURPOSE of the car is the factor and it's what makes the car what it is. The driver does not make the car the car, but in your analogy one is soul and the other the body. It is a car regardless if ANYONE ever drives it or not. You are saying the purpose of the car is to enhance mobility, my take is the purpose of the car is to do whatever it has a purpose for, and that purpose is not limited to mobility. Whether it be to use in a movie explosion, or whether it sits in a collectors garage, the purpose is going to change one way or another.
Your doctrine itself states because we lust and want to experience these things that we are given bodies. If this is true lusting while being a soul before entering the body is a state of suffering because you are wanting for something other than God and God alone. Your doctrine believes that you keep going through several bodies until you get it right. My doctrine states you don't go through several bodies until you get it right--one shot, and thats it. Your doctrine states we are living souls who knew about things before hand, came into the world and forget about it. My doctrine teaches we had no knowledge of anything and did not exist with God as friends, worshippers, followers etc. Yes, this will lead into traducianism VS creationism, and again this is because we follow two different things.
I gave you a very simple explanation why the material exists in the past post and I gave you one in this post. My doctrine states God created the world for HIS own purpose and that the purpose would be so we could give glory back to God. YOUR doctrine states we suffer material pangs and wants as a soul and thats why the body is created. It states different bodies are created to house the soul of an individual at different times. Mine states the soul of man was designed for this body alone, and not for the body of whales, ants, roaches, worms, tigers, bats, apples, passion flowers or trees as these are seperate creations.
The need of material manifestation comes into play because the material manifestation is what houses the immortal soul. You are placing a time limit on things when you allude to the body not being needed if certain experiences are made manifest. You ARE talking about time when you imply a limited thing (the body) is not needed for the unlimited.
No, my doctrine states you don't experience anything period until you enter the body. Your doctrine states some devotees DON'T suffer these things so they aren't given a body. They have a higher understanding or comprehension of the God and are satisfied with him and him alone. Yes, we have a concept of those who are spirits and living beings, but they don't come to earth, and the ones that did come to earth are the ones who rebelled against God himself. I do not ascribe to the belief that *I* was in heaven glorifying God and had to come here because I like women with curves (or whatever it is my senses are occupied with.)
Typo. The real you at this point in time is your soul. The real you at a LATER point in time is your soul and the NEW body. This body is incorruptible and can't be destroyed.
I didn't tell you that is just the way it is. I told you that is how God designed us and that we are designed in his image. Since we are designed in his image we have the same attributes only we are limited. At the same time, we have attributes he doesn't have because of the fact that we go against him.
Again, I gave you the reason. We learn that we are made in Gods image, and our purpose is to glorify him and serve him. Because of the trangression of the law, we are subjected to a corruptible body and will experience it only once until we are resurrected and given the new body. We are not taught we are given multiple bodies and multiple chances to get it right--one shot, to hit or miss.
I explained this. We are simply a creation of God. Just like the praying mantis and the lion is a creation of God. Just like Seraphs are creations of God. The need for giving us a material body is so we can glorify him in a different way that NO OTHER CREATION can (and that includes animals.) In my beliefs what you're stating is an impossibility, because there is no pre-existing self as a soul worshipping god and doing his will. There is no pre-existing self that is selfish and wants to come here. Again, the doctrine is God made us for HIS purpose, and the world was made for HIS ultimate purpose, and that purpose is for creation to glorify him and NOT for creation to have a playground to indulge in senses that detract from him.
There is a personal interest. And I have told you this at least five times by now. If God wants variation what is the problem? If God wants a creation that is soul and flesh to openly praise himw hats the problem?
We are told that even the rocks praise him and that all creation is a testimony to his love and glorifies him. What you're basically doing is the same thing Satan did in the bible and in the Quran.
Again your doctrine = God made flesh bodies because WE were at fault, so he wanted us to have a place to indulge.
My doctrine = God made flesh bodies because he wanted a different type of creation to glorify him in a different way.
The tree's glorify God in there way, the stars testify about his power in their way, the mountains represent in another way, birds in their way, animals in their way. So why do you look at the flesh body as something God would not be interested in?
Again, this is what your religious belief teaches and mine does not teach this. Going into this is going to lead into who is right and who is wrong. I have no time for that.
see above.
This was explained in my last post. The purpose of having a body is to house the soul. these two things are constantly warring against each other, but the soul is to lead the body and should dictate what the body does or what choices are made. They should both serve a purpose in doing what they do and that is to glorify God.
Again our beliefs differ. My beliefs teach we are given a new body like the one Yeshi had.
No destruction is not a characteristic of the inferior nature, and I'm not concocting anything. Something can be destroyed but that doesn't make it inferior. Superiority and inferiority are not determined by if something can be destroyed or not.
No, there is no teaching in my belief system that teaches heaven is never ending creation. There are however teachings that clearly state "hell" is a place of destruction, and that this place of destruction was ORIGINALLY designed/made for those who REBELLED against God. It also states that this will be the place of all souls that rebelled against God.
When it serves no purpose or has been incapacitated it is in a state of destruction.
see above.
Now you are entering the realm of annihilationism. If the soul is designed to praise God or dictate what our flesh does, but it no longer does so, it is no longer serving its intended purpose. It IS possible to seperate existence from purpose when you do not realize the purpose for your existence and don't act upon your purpose.
No, I would say that the purpose itself is limited. We are here to praise God and give him glory. That is limited. We aren't here to do all sorts of fancy things, have long drawn out conversations, party like it's 1999 etc. There isn't an appearance of limitation or nonexistence. You are either doing A or you are doing B.
Thats because you are looking at the car as the body. Think purpose...
When a soul is in a state of destruction it is still identified as a soul. It is not going to cease being a soul. It is not going to transform into something else. If a car is still identified as a car that is one thing, but when a car is melted down to its basic elements that is another. Please, don't make this more difficult than what it is. Hemp was able to grasp this after I posted it, but for some reason you want to question it. The bottom line is that you are within your right to question it all you want, but this will boil down to both of our beliefs being different and which view is right and which view is wrong.
Thats not a convo I am going to participate in.
You can use that analogy as well and it is still saying the same thing. You seem to not understand where I am going with the PURPOSE of the car. The PURPOSE of the car is the factor and it's what makes the car what it is. The driver does not make the car the car, but in your analogy one is soul and the other the body. It is a car regardless if ANYONE ever drives it or not. You are saying the purpose of the car is to enhance mobility, my take is the purpose of the car is to do whatever it has a purpose for, and that purpose is not limited to mobility. Whether it be to use in a movie explosion, or whether it sits in a collectors garage, the purpose is going to change one way or another.
Your doctrine itself states because we lust and want to experience these things that we are given bodies. If this is true lusting while being a soul before entering the body is a state of suffering because you are wanting for something other than God and God alone. Your doctrine believes that you keep going through several bodies until you get it right. My doctrine states you don't go through several bodies until you get it right--one shot, and thats it. Your doctrine states we are living souls who knew about things before hand, came into the world and forget about it. My doctrine teaches we had no knowledge of anything and did not exist with God as friends, worshippers, followers etc. Yes, this will lead into traducianism VS creationism, and again this is because we follow two different things.
I gave you a very simple explanation why the material exists in the past post and I gave you one in this post. My doctrine states God created the world for HIS own purpose and that the purpose would be so we could give glory back to God. YOUR doctrine states we suffer material pangs and wants as a soul and thats why the body is created. It states different bodies are created to house the soul of an individual at different times. Mine states the soul of man was designed for this body alone, and not for the body of whales, ants, roaches, worms, tigers, bats, apples, passion flowers or trees as these are seperate creations.
The need of material manifestation comes into play because the material manifestation is what houses the immortal soul. You are placing a time limit on things when you allude to the body not being needed if certain experiences are made manifest. You ARE talking about time when you imply a limited thing (the body) is not needed for the unlimited.
No, my doctrine states you don't experience anything period until you enter the body. Your doctrine states some devotees DON'T suffer these things so they aren't given a body. They have a higher understanding or comprehension of the God and are satisfied with him and him alone. Yes, we have a concept of those who are spirits and living beings, but they don't come to earth, and the ones that did come to earth are the ones who rebelled against God himself. I do not ascribe to the belief that *I* was in heaven glorifying God and had to come here because I like women with curves (or whatever it is my senses are occupied with.)
Typo. The real you at this point in time is your soul. The real you at a LATER point in time is your soul and the NEW body. This body is incorruptible and can't be destroyed.
I didn't tell you that is just the way it is. I told you that is how God designed us and that we are designed in his image. Since we are designed in his image we have the same attributes only we are limited. At the same time, we have attributes he doesn't have because of the fact that we go against him.
Again, I gave you the reason. We learn that we are made in Gods image, and our purpose is to glorify him and serve him. Because of the trangression of the law, we are subjected to a corruptible body and will experience it only once until we are resurrected and given the new body. We are not taught we are given multiple bodies and multiple chances to get it right--one shot, to hit or miss.
I explained this. We are simply a creation of God. Just like the praying mantis and the lion is a creation of God. Just like Seraphs are creations of God. The need for giving us a material body is so we can glorify him in a different way that NO OTHER CREATION can (and that includes animals.) In my beliefs what you're stating is an impossibility, because there is no pre-existing self as a soul worshipping god and doing his will. There is no pre-existing self that is selfish and wants to come here. Again, the doctrine is God made us for HIS purpose, and the world was made for HIS ultimate purpose, and that purpose is for creation to glorify him and NOT for creation to have a playground to indulge in senses that detract from him.
There is a personal interest. And I have told you this at least five times by now. If God wants variation what is the problem? If God wants a creation that is soul and flesh to openly praise himw hats the problem?
We are told that even the rocks praise him and that all creation is a testimony to his love and glorifies him. What you're basically doing is the same thing Satan did in the bible and in the Quran.
Again your doctrine = God made flesh bodies because WE were at fault, so he wanted us to have a place to indulge.
My doctrine = God made flesh bodies because he wanted a different type of creation to glorify him in a different way.
The tree's glorify God in there way, the stars testify about his power in their way, the mountains represent in another way, birds in their way, animals in their way. So why do you look at the flesh body as something God would not be interested in?
Don't get me started on that nonsense.
Look at it this way, I am just supplying a viable answer; a reason for material manifestation. You don't have to subscribe to it, but at the very least explain to me why the material manifestation exists according to your beliefs. And I know you have attempted to give your answer, so I'll respond to those instances further in this post...
The above doesn't answer my question...
Now you're just creating more questions. Why does the soul need to be housed?
My beliefs also teach that we are given a "new" body. In particular, one that is incorruptible. Anyway...
Existence is like truth. The truth can never be destroyed. It is ALWAYS the truth. What can happen is that the truth can be covered up or ignored. Similarly, the soul exists and is the very indestructible essence in contrast to the destructible material body. Just as there is no destroying nor any changing of truth, there is none such for the soul. God is truth. The soul is truth. These things do not change. Sometimes we know a little about God and then later we know more. This does not constitute a change in God. It constitutes a revealing of that which was true regardless if we knew it or not. The soul, like God, is an entity that dwells on the platform of permanence and immutability. If the truth of the eternal soul is it's eternal destruction, then that destruction is going on now. If it isn't going on now, then we know by our God-given intelligence that destruction is not the eternal occupation or symptom of the soul. It then may be argued that the soul is currently undergoing destruction, but that we are not aware of it. If this were the case, then the whole idea of eternal bliss with God in Heaven would not apply.
The material world is a place of destruction; Perhaps also a placed originally designed for those who rebelled against God. If the perfect facility for destruction exists in this material world, then why need it exist elsewhere? On the other hand, if it exists elsewhere (hell; where souls suffer without contracting material bodies) then what need is there for material manifestation? And don't tell me God desires that we glorify Him. We glorify Him in our incorruptible bodies. What application or possible pleasure can God have in having us glorify Him in corruptible bodies that would vastly differ from doing so with incorruptible ones? Does God care primarily with the mechanical act of service, or with the love of the individual? I hope I am not wrong when I assume that your answer is love. And because it is love, being in a corruptible body versus an incorruptible one makes absolutely no difference regarding loving devotional service toward God. And since it makes no difference, there is no reason to say that God desires one over the other. And since God does not desire one over the other, it follows that there is thus no reason why, if we suffer destruction here, a separate place called "hell" need exist.
Fine. And unless we ascertain that incapacitation is the eternal occupation or symptom of the incorruptible and immutable soul - meaning that the soul has always been in such a state - then we cannot rightfully apply this characteristic as being eternal. You want to get right down to the essence that is eternal soul, but then impose some external symptom that only endures from a certain point forth. If you want to argue that souls are not ever nor have ever been free from a state of destruction, then you have a case. But instead you want to apply change to an absolute truth. You want to say that 2 + 2 = 4 until the second Tuesday of March, 2028. You have to see how nonsensical that is. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of the calendar date.
Yes. Please see above.
I am not saying that annihilationism is the case. I am just saying that if we reject there being a purpose to the soul at any point of it's existence, then we are invariably rejecting the existence of the soul itself since the two are tied. What you are talking about is not the absence of purpose, but the absence of ability to serve that purpose. At least, the absence of one's ability to willfully serve their purpose. It may be argued that for whatever finite duration a soul is in an incapacitated state, he/she is serving as God intends for them at that point. I have no problem with this idea of incapacitation. The problem I have is that you promote it as being eternal, but impose it upon the soul as an external feature that comes later in the soul's existence.
This isn't at all what we are talking about. But if you want to find more to argue about I can accomodate you: the answer is that in our fully realized state we do all sorts of fancy things like have long drawn out conversations about God and throw God a party like it's 1999. In fact, in that state a connection with God is always realized. At the moment there may seem to be limitations, but that is because the full facility has not been revealed to you.
Anyway, I am aware that you mean a limitation or nonexistence of one's ability to serve their purpose, not that the purpose itself becomes nil. Let us not waste anymore time on this...
OK. And I have addressed the nature of that purpose/occupation in paragraphs above.
Similarly, the purpose of the soul is not going to cease or transform into something else. At some point you seem to fail to apply the quality of no-change to the soul. You are saying that a soul is for some time in a state of capacitation and then later in a state of incapacitation. There is no problem with this as long as you commit to one as being the eternal truth. If someone burns all the Bibles that exist that means that the truth has been covered up. Or, from the atheist perspective, that means that a falsehood has been destroyed. Either way, you must commit to one side. This philosophy applies here. Either the soul's eternal nature is in it's capacity and that sometimes it falls into a state where it is incapacitated, or the soul's eternal nature is in it's incapacity and perhaps sometimes there is at least the appearance of having capacity.
That you may find other purposes for a car is completely beside the point. I was giving a general purpose for a car and applying it to your analogy. In that analogy, we can draw a similarity between the car's driving purpose and the soul's loving devotional service toward God purpose. Or, we could use your exploding Hollywood car purpose in the analogy. It really doesn't matter. What I have been trying to do is focus squarely and without adulteration on the essence that is soul. As we proceed I am understanding that even when getting to that essence, you have the tendency to impose external characteristics upon it. We (Vedantists) would call this the mixing of material ego with spiritual knowledge. You have some knowledge, but at some point you are applying things that are unavoidably contradictory. And to wrap it all up in a nice package you simply argue that it is what you believe and/or what God wills, wether or not you can provide a possible, logical explanation for why it is like that or why God will it thus. I mean, that would be wonderful - even if you could provide a possible reason why God would will things as you say they are. But I guess it could be worse. Who knows? I may be able to find someone from some religion that teaches that an eternal God sometimes doesn't exist. And that person may have undying faith that this is true even though it is completely, utterly, invariably self-contradicting.
I am not arguing that lusting before taking shelter of a particular material form is not a state of suffering. Actually, such suffering takes place as soon as the desire for material existence begins. One can be conditioned under the material nature before taking shelter of a physical form. In fact, one can remain conditioned under the material nature between tangible, physical forms. We might call such instances "ghosts". Earlier in this discussion my intent was the same - to focus on the soul itself. I didn't want to add too much unnecessarily and possibly make it seem overly complicated. So at that time I asked a question that implied suffering as a result of a material form in particular because material forms demonstrate the impermanence of matter versus the permanence of spirit. Since then I have realized that there is a deeper issue here regarding what constitutes the very existential nature of the soul. And I understand there is a difference between what we follow. (Are you telling me or telling yourself to try and keep yourself at a distance?) I am simply exploring the premises you accept (most of which I accept as well) and some of the conclusions you draw (some of which I do not accept) and asking questions and presenting philosophy to see if I can't get sufficient answers or maybe even spark an epiphany, in others or myself.
You seem to now be picking things out of what I follow to try and contrast with yours. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am not arguing that you should accept souls taking whale or ant bodies. So why even bring that up?
And giving God glory is not exclusive to having a corruptible, material body. We've been over this.
Why does the immortal soul need to be housed by a corruptible body?
YES. I am saying that the time-limited material body is not needed to serve the purpose of the unlimited. Where in that do you see me placing a time limit upon anything? I mean to say, where do you see me imposing a time limit where it isn't known to exist? We both know that the material body is limited in time. That is an undeniable feature of material existence. Originally, in this regard, you wrote:
"You are placing a time limit on something you yourself say has no time limit. I am saying there is no time limit to being in the state of destruction."
The answer is that I am not, nor have I been placing a time limit on something I myself say has no time limit. Actually, it is you who has applied a time limit to destruction by saying that it begins at some point and thus admitting (whether you realize it or not) that such a state cannot be an eternal function/purpose of the soul. As I've said numerous times before in this post, if you want to say that the state of incapacitation or destruction is the eternal occupation/function of the soul, then you'd have a consistent argument. So far you are promoting the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 until the second Tuesday of March, 2028.
That's fine. As far as this discussion goes currently, it really doesn't matter if you accept the soul as existing in an individual or personal capacity prior to the conception of the material body one inhabits. You could just believe that your individualness and all the personality traits didn't manifest until this material body and my argument still stands. That argument is, why do you need to contract a material body when you can admittedly serve the same function without one?
And this is your conclusion based on your material vision. The reason I say this is because truth is revealed, not made. In other words, the eternal truth is that the soul AND the incorruptible, spiritual body are the real you. It is just that at the moment we have no access to this spiritual body. So according to our imperfect vision we may conclude something likened to saying that the sun doesn't exist during the night, but then exists during the day. During the day of our spiritual perfection, our incorruptible bodies will be revealed to us. And may we never again leave the light of the Lord's loving effulgence!
Right. You basically told me that that is just the way God said it is, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that is just the way it is. I am sure you believe that, but regardless that is not at all an answer to any of my questions.
As far as having attributes that God does not have, I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps we can explore that more. If you are pointing to the attribute of a corruptible, temporal body (for example) then I would say that we (the actual spiritual entities) are not attributed such, but only that we have mistaken self as these material bodies. The fact that we can mistake our identity and even take shelter of an external form I would not consider an attribute. I consider attributes as those things that eternally apply to the eternal soul. Everything else is likened to the distress of a dreaming man who sees his head has been cut off and is mounted on a wall. During his dream state he may feel great distress and identify with this vision of his decapitated head. Although upon awakening the same man realizes the absurdity of seeing one's own head separated from one's body.
apparently you are also not taught a sufficient answer to why hell and material manifestation need both exist.
Fine. I'll run with that for sake of this discussion: 'There is no pre-existing self as a soul worshipping God and doing His will.' That's fine. But as soon as the soul is "created" in this situation, why must it do so in context of a duality between itself and a material body? Why can't the soul be created in some state without a material body? Since you have admitted that the soul can serve God without a curruptible, material body and also that a soul can suffer destruction without a material body, my question still stands, regardless of how long in the past we believe the soul has existed.
The problem is that you can not even offer a possible answer to why God would desire this over us simply serving him in our pure state. You have not shown any significant distinction between the act of service with the tool of a material body and the act of service in one's own pure spiritual form. More importantly, you can not show a superiority in the capacity for a loving attitude in having a material body over having a spiritual one. If anything, it should be argued that in our spiritual bodies our capacity for love is much greater because it is not constantly hindered by feelings of material lust.
Yet I am promoting the same attitude of loving devotional service toward God. You mightaswell tell Jesus he is casting out devils with devils while you're at it.
God doesn't desire glorification via corruptible material body. If you believe that God desires souls be in full knowledge and in their pure state of spiritual existence, you will understand why your above statement is completely false. God certainly accepts service and glorification regardless of the body one uses, but to say that God specifically desires it from temporal bodies, which to His ETERNAL glory are as nothing, is the definition of ridiculous. What you are actually saying is that God's love is conditional/circumstantial. You are conditioning God. "God only accepts love and service via the circumstance of material manifestation, but then later He may accept it otherwise". That is your position.
What you are describing here is the realization that all creation is a testimony to God's power. Now, beyond God's power, there is God's love. And eternal love can only apply to eternal things. Therefore the conclusion is that God is not interested in temporal, flesh bodies. Once again, this is a case of material (false) ego on your part. You are identifying self as body. But the fact is that someday you will leave behind the material body and continue to glorify Him. At that point you will realize that God was never interested in a material body, nor the mountains, nor the stars, nor the trees, but only that this body, these mountains, stars and trees were good for you, an eternal soul. In other words, God is interested only in how material things relate to spiritual beings, and never in material things themselves.
Look at it this way, I am just supplying a viable answer; a reason for material manifestation. You don't have to subscribe to it, but at the very least explain to me why the material manifestation exists according to your beliefs. And I know you have attempted to give your answer, so I'll respond to those instances further in this post...
The above doesn't answer my question...
Now you're just creating more questions. Why does the soul need to be housed?
My beliefs also teach that we are given a "new" body. In particular, one that is incorruptible. Anyway...
Existence is like truth. The truth can never be destroyed. It is ALWAYS the truth. What can happen is that the truth can be covered up or ignored. Similarly, the soul exists and is the very indestructible essence in contrast to the destructible material body. Just as there is no destroying nor any changing of truth, there is none such for the soul. God is truth. The soul is truth. These things do not change. Sometimes we know a little about God and then later we know more. This does not constitute a change in God. It constitutes a revealing of that which was true regardless if we knew it or not. The soul, like God, is an entity that dwells on the platform of permanence and immutability. If the truth of the eternal soul is it's eternal destruction, then that destruction is going on now. If it isn't going on now, then we know by our God-given intelligence that destruction is not the eternal occupation or symptom of the soul. It then may be argued that the soul is currently undergoing destruction, but that we are not aware of it. If this were the case, then the whole idea of eternal bliss with God in Heaven would not apply.
The material world is a place of destruction; Perhaps also a placed originally designed for those who rebelled against God. If the perfect facility for destruction exists in this material world, then why need it exist elsewhere? On the other hand, if it exists elsewhere (hell; where souls suffer without contracting material bodies) then what need is there for material manifestation? And don't tell me God desires that we glorify Him. We glorify Him in our incorruptible bodies. What application or possible pleasure can God have in having us glorify Him in corruptible bodies that would vastly differ from doing so with incorruptible ones? Does God care primarily with the mechanical act of service, or with the love of the individual? I hope I am not wrong when I assume that your answer is love. And because it is love, being in a corruptible body versus an incorruptible one makes absolutely no difference regarding loving devotional service toward God. And since it makes no difference, there is no reason to say that God desires one over the other. And since God does not desire one over the other, it follows that there is thus no reason why, if we suffer destruction here, a separate place called "hell" need exist.
Fine. And unless we ascertain that incapacitation is the eternal occupation or symptom of the incorruptible and immutable soul - meaning that the soul has always been in such a state - then we cannot rightfully apply this characteristic as being eternal. You want to get right down to the essence that is eternal soul, but then impose some external symptom that only endures from a certain point forth. If you want to argue that souls are not ever nor have ever been free from a state of destruction, then you have a case. But instead you want to apply change to an absolute truth. You want to say that 2 + 2 = 4 until the second Tuesday of March, 2028. You have to see how nonsensical that is. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of the calendar date.
Yes. Please see above.
I am not saying that annihilationism is the case. I am just saying that if we reject there being a purpose to the soul at any point of it's existence, then we are invariably rejecting the existence of the soul itself since the two are tied. What you are talking about is not the absence of purpose, but the absence of ability to serve that purpose. At least, the absence of one's ability to willfully serve their purpose. It may be argued that for whatever finite duration a soul is in an incapacitated state, he/she is serving as God intends for them at that point. I have no problem with this idea of incapacitation. The problem I have is that you promote it as being eternal, but impose it upon the soul as an external feature that comes later in the soul's existence.
This isn't at all what we are talking about. But if you want to find more to argue about I can accomodate you: the answer is that in our fully realized state we do all sorts of fancy things like have long drawn out conversations about God and throw God a party like it's 1999. In fact, in that state a connection with God is always realized. At the moment there may seem to be limitations, but that is because the full facility has not been revealed to you.
Anyway, I am aware that you mean a limitation or nonexistence of one's ability to serve their purpose, not that the purpose itself becomes nil. Let us not waste anymore time on this...
OK. And I have addressed the nature of that purpose/occupation in paragraphs above.
Similarly, the purpose of the soul is not going to cease or transform into something else. At some point you seem to fail to apply the quality of no-change to the soul. You are saying that a soul is for some time in a state of capacitation and then later in a state of incapacitation. There is no problem with this as long as you commit to one as being the eternal truth. If someone burns all the Bibles that exist that means that the truth has been covered up. Or, from the atheist perspective, that means that a falsehood has been destroyed. Either way, you must commit to one side. This philosophy applies here. Either the soul's eternal nature is in it's capacity and that sometimes it falls into a state where it is incapacitated, or the soul's eternal nature is in it's incapacity and perhaps sometimes there is at least the appearance of having capacity.
That you may find other purposes for a car is completely beside the point. I was giving a general purpose for a car and applying it to your analogy. In that analogy, we can draw a similarity between the car's driving purpose and the soul's loving devotional service toward God purpose. Or, we could use your exploding Hollywood car purpose in the analogy. It really doesn't matter. What I have been trying to do is focus squarely and without adulteration on the essence that is soul. As we proceed I am understanding that even when getting to that essence, you have the tendency to impose external characteristics upon it. We (Vedantists) would call this the mixing of material ego with spiritual knowledge. You have some knowledge, but at some point you are applying things that are unavoidably contradictory. And to wrap it all up in a nice package you simply argue that it is what you believe and/or what God wills, wether or not you can provide a possible, logical explanation for why it is like that or why God will it thus. I mean, that would be wonderful - even if you could provide a possible reason why God would will things as you say they are. But I guess it could be worse. Who knows? I may be able to find someone from some religion that teaches that an eternal God sometimes doesn't exist. And that person may have undying faith that this is true even though it is completely, utterly, invariably self-contradicting.
I am not arguing that lusting before taking shelter of a particular material form is not a state of suffering. Actually, such suffering takes place as soon as the desire for material existence begins. One can be conditioned under the material nature before taking shelter of a physical form. In fact, one can remain conditioned under the material nature between tangible, physical forms. We might call such instances "ghosts". Earlier in this discussion my intent was the same - to focus on the soul itself. I didn't want to add too much unnecessarily and possibly make it seem overly complicated. So at that time I asked a question that implied suffering as a result of a material form in particular because material forms demonstrate the impermanence of matter versus the permanence of spirit. Since then I have realized that there is a deeper issue here regarding what constitutes the very existential nature of the soul. And I understand there is a difference between what we follow. (Are you telling me or telling yourself to try and keep yourself at a distance?) I am simply exploring the premises you accept (most of which I accept as well) and some of the conclusions you draw (some of which I do not accept) and asking questions and presenting philosophy to see if I can't get sufficient answers or maybe even spark an epiphany, in others or myself.
You seem to now be picking things out of what I follow to try and contrast with yours. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am not arguing that you should accept souls taking whale or ant bodies. So why even bring that up?
And giving God glory is not exclusive to having a corruptible, material body. We've been over this.
Why does the immortal soul need to be housed by a corruptible body?
YES. I am saying that the time-limited material body is not needed to serve the purpose of the unlimited. Where in that do you see me placing a time limit upon anything? I mean to say, where do you see me imposing a time limit where it isn't known to exist? We both know that the material body is limited in time. That is an undeniable feature of material existence. Originally, in this regard, you wrote:
"You are placing a time limit on something you yourself say has no time limit. I am saying there is no time limit to being in the state of destruction."
The answer is that I am not, nor have I been placing a time limit on something I myself say has no time limit. Actually, it is you who has applied a time limit to destruction by saying that it begins at some point and thus admitting (whether you realize it or not) that such a state cannot be an eternal function/purpose of the soul. As I've said numerous times before in this post, if you want to say that the state of incapacitation or destruction is the eternal occupation/function of the soul, then you'd have a consistent argument. So far you are promoting the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 until the second Tuesday of March, 2028.
That's fine. As far as this discussion goes currently, it really doesn't matter if you accept the soul as existing in an individual or personal capacity prior to the conception of the material body one inhabits. You could just believe that your individualness and all the personality traits didn't manifest until this material body and my argument still stands. That argument is, why do you need to contract a material body when you can admittedly serve the same function without one?
And this is your conclusion based on your material vision. The reason I say this is because truth is revealed, not made. In other words, the eternal truth is that the soul AND the incorruptible, spiritual body are the real you. It is just that at the moment we have no access to this spiritual body. So according to our imperfect vision we may conclude something likened to saying that the sun doesn't exist during the night, but then exists during the day. During the day of our spiritual perfection, our incorruptible bodies will be revealed to us. And may we never again leave the light of the Lord's loving effulgence!
Right. You basically told me that that is just the way God said it is, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that is just the way it is. I am sure you believe that, but regardless that is not at all an answer to any of my questions.
As far as having attributes that God does not have, I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps we can explore that more. If you are pointing to the attribute of a corruptible, temporal body (for example) then I would say that we (the actual spiritual entities) are not attributed such, but only that we have mistaken self as these material bodies. The fact that we can mistake our identity and even take shelter of an external form I would not consider an attribute. I consider attributes as those things that eternally apply to the eternal soul. Everything else is likened to the distress of a dreaming man who sees his head has been cut off and is mounted on a wall. During his dream state he may feel great distress and identify with this vision of his decapitated head. Although upon awakening the same man realizes the absurdity of seeing one's own head separated from one's body.
apparently you are also not taught a sufficient answer to why hell and material manifestation need both exist.
Fine. I'll run with that for sake of this discussion: 'There is no pre-existing self as a soul worshipping God and doing His will.' That's fine. But as soon as the soul is "created" in this situation, why must it do so in context of a duality between itself and a material body? Why can't the soul be created in some state without a material body? Since you have admitted that the soul can serve God without a curruptible, material body and also that a soul can suffer destruction without a material body, my question still stands, regardless of how long in the past we believe the soul has existed.
The problem is that you can not even offer a possible answer to why God would desire this over us simply serving him in our pure state. You have not shown any significant distinction between the act of service with the tool of a material body and the act of service in one's own pure spiritual form. More importantly, you can not show a superiority in the capacity for a loving attitude in having a material body over having a spiritual one. If anything, it should be argued that in our spiritual bodies our capacity for love is much greater because it is not constantly hindered by feelings of material lust.
Yet I am promoting the same attitude of loving devotional service toward God. You mightaswell tell Jesus he is casting out devils with devils while you're at it.
God doesn't desire glorification via corruptible material body. If you believe that God desires souls be in full knowledge and in their pure state of spiritual existence, you will understand why your above statement is completely false. God certainly accepts service and glorification regardless of the body one uses, but to say that God specifically desires it from temporal bodies, which to His ETERNAL glory are as nothing, is the definition of ridiculous. What you are actually saying is that God's love is conditional/circumstantial. You are conditioning God. "God only accepts love and service via the circumstance of material manifestation, but then later He may accept it otherwise". That is your position.
What you are describing here is the realization that all creation is a testimony to God's power. Now, beyond God's power, there is God's love. And eternal love can only apply to eternal things. Therefore the conclusion is that God is not interested in temporal, flesh bodies. Once again, this is a case of material (false) ego on your part. You are identifying self as body. But the fact is that someday you will leave behind the material body and continue to glorify Him. At that point you will realize that God was never interested in a material body, nor the mountains, nor the stars, nor the trees, but only that this body, these mountains, stars and trees were good for you, an eternal soul. In other words, God is interested only in how material things relate to spiritual beings, and never in material things themselves.
ThaG said:
something is seriously wrong with you guys :ermm:
so much arguing about the soul when it is absolutely unbelievable how a person who has a sufficient education to be able to post on an internet message board can believe in such a silly and irrational concept
so much arguing about the soul when it is absolutely unbelievable how a person who has a sufficient education to be able to post on an internet message board can believe in such a silly and irrational concept