What is death?

[from scratch]

no it is not...i hate when folks say that.
if something doesn't agree with their particular opinion, they say things like the above.

the grave here, refers to where the dead's earthly bodies reside...not their soul. their soul and spirit is in heaven.
it is figurative...
their soul, or spirit, goes to God at flesh death.
it is an easy thing to prove.

the dead are in heaven today...see Matt22, Luk16, 1Thes4 and Rev5/6/12/19/22

the righteous dead leave heaven with Christ at His 2nd Coming,
and they come here with Him,
and are raised here....
then those of us who are alive at that time, are gathered/siezed together with them.

see 1Thes4:13-16


He's talking about the resurrection of the dead. that has not happened yet.

too many Christians errantly think that "resurrection" is for the dead to go from the grave.tombs etc, up to heaven...
when it doesn't mean that at all.

but since they believe that, they believe no one is in heaven today.
problem is that there are MULTIPLE scriptures that plainly show that the dead are in heaven today, concious and some are even working for the Lord.


resurrection means going from heaven, to be raised and live on earth again, as promised.

Interesting but the soul is all I'm interested in. And you did say that all souls are in heaven. To me you have a back up and punt post here. You certianly should have picked up before your post that details are very important in the fine points of discussion. I believe from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and defile a person just as Jesus said. IOW one's words betray them just like they did Peter, 'member?

 

[from scratch]

Hi...that is not the Strong's definition.

here it is.


5315
nephesh
neh'-fesh
from 'naphash' (5314); properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.


and? since when is that the determining factor.
i guarentee you that more folks use the correct Strong's than the errant lexicon that you are using.

Ah so this really isn't a discussion, but a I'm right and your wrong childish argument. no problemo.

ummmm. it is in the STRONG'S Concordance....
maybe not in the lexicon you are using, that you claim to be the Strong's.

My hard copy that agrees with your net site says concise Dictionary and not lexicon which in reality turn out to be the same exact thing. The first word defining lexicon is dictionary. Thus my terminolgy and use is 100% correct.

What I quoted wasn't from the concordance part of the publication. What I posted as a c&p from my site is also correct and in agreement.

lol. that is what you are saying...by implication.
funny thing is that you cannot even see it yourself.

you are trying to tell me that destroy is not there, and i say it is,
just not in the english definition that you use.

it was not an insult.
i thought it was a proper retort to your insult about destroy not being there.

and of course it is, both in english and in the Greek definition, as i showed.

Where did I say destroy wasn't where? You must have a reading problem. Destroy is still there. I double checked. I disagreed with cause. I read every jot and title of every post in this thread. Perhaps you don't understand what a definition is. Destroy fully or to destroy isn't a definition of desdroy. It is nothing more than the translated Greek word for destroy as found in Mat 10:28 which is apollymi.

to destroy fully means just that, if it is context to our soul.
just what can exist after the soul is destroyed fully? nothing can.

I can find no connection between destroy an annihilate from the word destroy. So your incorrect in applying destroy to annihilate. And you're using the word destroy to mean annihilate. My DI in basic training would shout in my face THAT'S A NO GO SOLDIER!! NOW GIVE ME 20 and knew I better hit the dirt while saying yes Drill Sergent very meekly.

no, i am promoting that i am right, over you.
and i see that as the truth

No foolin, ya really mean it See remakrs about DI above these days I'll say no sale! I ain't buying that for a split NYC second. Didn't say you spoke your heart though.

and? numbers don't mean what you think they do.
whether two or four or eight or millions post errant things, that does not make them right.

it is not a secret that many confuse theStrong's for other lexicons that happen to have stolen, or use the Strong's NUMBERING system.

they add their OWN definition, dependig on their denom and belief.

So if you keep repeating yourself with no proof you think I'm gonna be intimidated to your position. My that is funny no offense intended but I'm not zactly stuipd. Cocky yes and I can affort to be.

why not?
i think it is more a matter of mis communication.
if we were one to one in person, we'd probably have no problem getting our points across

Now if I were to answer that I'd get into trouble, so I'm gonna be smart and say nothing more about the issue of us seeing eye to eye and coming to the same side of the fence. I believe that Paul says you are my enemy. Note to you and the asministration I DIDN'T SAY YOU WEREN'T OR IMPLY YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN OK.

no...all the dead who have died up till now, are in heaven now.
the faithfull get rasied back here for life ever after when Jesus leaves hevaen with them and raises them here on earth.
the evil ones get raised back here a thousand years later, for judgement where they are destroyed forever.

that is not universalism.

We read a different book. So sorry.

no, did you go to the site I provided?

I knew you didn't. And have plenty reason to believe you won't. Thus we really don't have a conversation about anything.

Yes I did and I made comments about it.

there are plenty of good sites out there, and plenty of bad ones/misleading ones.
who's to say...depends on what you believe....

and btw, there are next to no unbiased sites or theories.

Hey we agree on something.

 

[YosemiteSam]

resurrection means going from heaven, to be raised and live on earth again, as promised.

Referring to your last sentence...going from heaven (a spiritual being) to be raised (a physical being again) to live on earth again...Do I understand you correctly?

 

[David64]

problem is that there are MULTIPLE scriptures that plainly show that the dead are in heaven today, concious and some are even working for the Lord.


resurrection means going from heaven, to be raised and live on earth again, as promised.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[from scratch]

Chapter and verse please.

Hey even I would be interested in some Scripture for support.

 

[JohnRabbit]

no it is not...i hate when folks say that.
if something doesn't agree with their particular opinion, they say things like the above.

why of course they do! there's disagreement!!!

the grave here, refers to where the dead's earthly bodies reside...not their soul. their soul and spirit is in heaven.
it is figurative...
their soul, or spirit, goes to God at flesh death.
it is an easy thing to prove.

the dead are in heaven today...see Matt22, Luk16, 1Thes4 and Rev5/6/12/19/22

you're going to have to demonstrate this proof, because i'm not seeing it even with the books you reference.

the righteous dead leave heaven with Christ at His 2nd Coming,
and they come here with Him,
and are raised here....
then those of us who are alive at that time, are gathered/siezed together with them.

see 1Thes4:13-16

the dead leave heaven to come to earth to be resurrected? again, you're going to have to demonstrate what you are talking about.

He's talking about the resurrection of the dead. that has not happened yet.

too many Christians errantly think that "resurrection" is for the dead to go from the grave.tombs etc, up to heaven...
when it doesn't mean that at all.

but since they believe that, they believe no one is in heaven today.
problem is that there are MULTIPLE scriptures that plainly show that the dead are in heaven today, concious and some are even working for the Lord.


resurrection means going from heaven, to be raised and live on earth again, as promised.

here again, i would like for you to qualify what you are saying here with some scriptural support.

i have never read anything in the bible that supports what you are saying.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I did read your previous post - I know that the "curse of death" passed to all of us as a result of his eating of the tree but God said "in the day that thou (you) eatest thereof thou (you) shalt surely die." Something in Adam died that day - and I know that he did not die physically because he was still breathing! BUT something died or God lied to him. I don't believe God lied to him - I believe that he died spiritually and that is why we must be born again and that is why we need Jesus Christ to reconcile us back to God.

With a problem using 2 Pet 3:8 why would you have such? All scripture is given for the correction, reproof and instruction. All scripture points to how God thinks...the bible is the mind of God in print per se...

Peter might have used it (the thousand day for a day) in his addressing the 2 coming of Christ but David also used it in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. KJ

So here Peter didn't use it David did...It shows the passing of time as we count it is nothing to God. He is Eternal!

gota go again,,,will get back to ya....Y

I don't believe those scriptures mean that a day is actually a thousand years but that time means nothing to God. By saying that something in Adam didn't die that day is the same lie the serpent told Eve when she was being tempted: From previous post: #1 Doesn't that sound like the same lie the serpent gave Eve in Gen. 3:4; ye shall not surely die? [/QUOTE]

so, what died that day?

God said that he (adam) would die and he did (gen 5:5).

 

[JohnRabbit]

The problem I have with using 2 Peter 3:8 to explain why Adam didn't die "that day" is #1 Doesn't that sound like the same lie the serpent gave Eve in Gen. 3:4; ye shall not surely die? and #2 - 2 Peter 3:8 is referring to the 2nd coming of Christ. 2 Peter 3:4 Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. . . .v8 "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years one day The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness but is longsuffering to us-ward not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. . .

i think YosemiteSam answered this in his post #270.

thanks, Yo!

 

[zeke37]

The definition I used came from Strong's Concordance with Greek and Hebrew. . www.tgm/bible.htm (Bible Tools)

actually, it did not.
they might have told you that, but it is not. :o
i have 2 hard copy editions, a version on disc and web links to the proper one.

you can trust the on-lin version on e-sword.

you are using a "lexicon" that is using the Strong's "numbering system" only, and their very own definitions, right or wrong.

 

[zeke37]

LOL!!! Well at lest I understand what tangent means to you.

i dont mind the joke, but repeating it over and over and over again, is a tangent, IMO.

Now lets address my talking dust.

When the body dies it returns to dust. 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen 3

i agree if you mean the flesh body. it is gone......dust.

We have people here saying that the soul also dies at this time meaning that it disinaggrates or disppears into nothing.

i don't say that.

Yet we have Jesus saying these non existant (dead) beings are talking (at least the one in hell) with someone.

again, i don't say that...which is why i did not understand your tangent.

Now what is talking? The only thing that remains of a man as some would have us believe is dust. He no longer has a soul because God took it back (indian giver) or it must have been on loan to a mud pile (human - we are 75% water and 25% dust, I'd call that sloppy mud). Is the breath God breathed into man a soul? Or did man become a living soul when God breathed into him (the breath of life) and he became a living soul.

Some here wish to put man on the same level of animals. But I ask where did God breathe into them? All animal life was spoken into existence as it is even today. There is no indication that animals can or will be redeemed.

We also have the problem of Jesus saying both body and soul. So they must be 2 different items. There are words in the Greek for the words 'both,' 'body' and 'soul.' So it isn't some thing peculiar to English to make sense with our language to use all 3 words.

So if the breath (soul as some insist) of all (as in everyone - no exceptions) goes back to heaven, what is it that is being tomented in hell or is that really heaven because that is where all souls (breath) are as some insist?

that is how i see it...
all go back to heaven.
the gulf that the righ man was in, was in heaven.
i believe his "condition" was hell, not his location.

It has to be dust because it is the only thing left. This is also universal salvation of all - willing or not.

sorry, since i don't teach what you think i do for some reason, you are loosing me here.

So now we have a problem with what heaven and hell are. If I poke a little fun of the the idea that torment occurs in heaven would it be a problem for you? Torment in heaven just doesn't work for me.

it does for me, because the rich man could see the throne and Abraham and Lazarus.
i think Abraham explained it well.
they are seperated from God and Abraham and those that are righteous, and that is toments to them.

In light of the above and the discussion in this thread I have trouble placing the soul which isn't talked about returning anywhere or even dying in the sense of being non functional or lacking in emotional or communicative functions. Breath has no emotional capabilities, it can't speak nor does it have a tongue.

what is left of us after we die, returns to God.
if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, then we believe that He will bring those that sleep in Him, with Him, and raise them here.

now, i do not look for any flesh body to be raised...no.
but certainly the soul, or spiritual/heavenly body that we exist in after the flesh, returns here to earth and lives here.

1Thes4:13-16.

so for the dead to return with Christ from heaven, they must have got there to begin with.

 

[zeke37]

[/color]

No I don't think I confused you with anybody else. But I did throw everyone in the thread into the same pot of stew including myself. This is a public discussion and not a private conversation.

obviously

I have no problem with you presenting what you believe.

thank you

If you wish to provide uncontested doctrine, GT isn't the place.

na, it's just that i'd like to be understood properly _

I do find it interesting that even the wicked get to enjoy heaven for a period of time.

sure, but it is not so nice for them on their side.
ask the rich man of Luke16

Just more reason to party hearty cause they get to go to heaven just like those holier than thou types.

if you really wanna go where he is....ok then...

So what is the value of being holier than thou? None that I can see. Of course this is from your perspective and not mine.

well, it's from someone's mis-perspective.
don't know how you could come up with that from my posts....lol

I would really love to see evidence that the wicked go to heaven, especially from the Scripture. Should prove interesting and eye opening for me.

well, where are Abraham and Lazarus?
in heaven right?
but they are on the good side of the gulf.

where is the rich man if He can see Abraham and Lazarus,
and even talk to them???

 

[11822]

Well, I wonder why scripture says: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?

Spiritual death

 

[11822]

Sorry patience7. i see i already said that in an earlier post. I was reading through this stuff and forgot i was already here some time back.

 

[zeke37]

Originally Posted by zeke37

that is one of your confused areas.
I never said or implied that the soul is destroyed at flesh death...
nope, not me.
​

From your discussion of the is able phrase I pointed out I gather that that you believe the soul of the wicked will be destroyed as in annihilated.

at judgement, after the IMO still future Millennium, not at their flesh death.

I don't get this view from Scripture. The English doesn't read destroy(ed) fully. Considering Jesus' statement in Luke 16 that I posted I don't see how one can come to your conclusion on Mat 10:28. One must take the whole counsel of Scripture.

greek does read destroyed fully

as i have always said.
the proper strong's concordance definition shows destroyed fully as the meaning, whether literal or figurative.
you are not using the Strong's Concordance, although granted that MANY Christians THINK that they are.
lots of errant copycats out there.
​

In my hard copy dictionary the word destroy has no meaning to provide the idea of annihiliation.

good for your dictionary...when FULLY is added, what is left?
and that is what the Strong's says, and that is what the english verse more than implies, to me at least.

The word annihiliation doesn't appear in the list of synonyms either. To fully destroy something doesn't include the connotation of non existence in any form.

sure it does, but one has to stay in context.
since we are talking about destroying a soul in hell,
and the greek word translated into the english as destroy, is more accurately rendered destroyed fully,
then maybe you can see my point.
but i understand your definition and reasoning, as this is a topic i have studied before.
I believe otherwise.

I've looked at your cited site version of Strongs and have no problem with it.

that is because it is like the original hard copy.

I ask you to comapre each word in both sites.

i did, and was not impressed with yours, which is why i commented.
i see it around here all the time.
it might use the strong's numbering system, but it's not the Strong's.

I think you will find both sites/versions containing the same exact words. My site/citation does include a little more but nothing that interfers with the truth that I can see.

really?

If you think so, please discuss and not just bold and say you disagree. Because my site doesn't match your site is no cause to say mine is wrong.

i didn't say that it was wrong...i said it was not the Strong's definition.

As you indicated that is being childish in a I'm right and your wrong nanna, nannah, nanna attitude as the expresses.

post yours again and well see.

 

[zeke37]

Originally Posted by from scratch

If man became a living soul meaning the body when God breathed into him it also ceases to exist when this breath is with drawn by any force or reason. Mat 10:28 clearly shows this to not be the case. It is impossible for man and possible for God. Now where is your Scripture that says God destroys the soul as in ceasing to exist.
​

I humbly ask where is the Scripture? Did I make an unreasonable request?

yes, because i already answered it.
you simply disagree that destroy fully means annihilate.

plus...speaking of the flesh death....

6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
​

one was in bliss, and one was in a condition of torment, not physical torment.
they were on the same plain of existance, as they could communicate and see each other.
​

Is this not convoluted and not found in the Scripture? It doesn't mean the same place as previously indicated (by you I think) from all souls going to heaven. Lots of difference there.

they could see each other and talk to each other.

and again, i have never said that the soul ceases to exist at flesh death....
rather at judgement.
i think that is where you got confused. it happens.
​

OK are you going to make me search the thread or can you kindly repeat what you said about death? I can. Generally my comments are in reference to the whole thread and not focused specifically on you or your commments. Again this is a public discussion.

good for it...lol.
ps. when you are replying to me, then you are focused specifically on my comments....

you are making a mistake, and i am correcting you.
say thanks and move on.

 

[zeke37]

I provided for your convience the site I c&p from. Yes it isn't your site or demanded format. I still see no comparison argument for proving it to present fraudlent information. Yes you did bold some of the c&p that I provided. I don't see any proof the bolded was fraudulent. All I saw was that you disagreed with my presentation. No problemo. If you wish to establish your point submit proof.

i did...i presented you with the correct Strong's definition.

if you wish to also use a webster's, go for it.
if it is at odds witht he Strong's then look out.

Where is your support for annihilation?

i have given it multiple times.

Is able doesn't remotely mean does, did or will.

it means can, and that there is a possibility.

it does not mean won't.

First of all you must establish that this does or will occur.

maybe you should establish that it does not occure, since the verse , and more, clearly says that it does.

There is no support in Mat 10:28 for annihilation.

sure there is...

fearing God instead of man, because He is able to fully destroy (as the greek defines it) your soul in hell, is a pretty good proof IMO.

You did say if which means there is or can be a question about annihilation. Now there are many Bible versions that use the word can. I understand the the word can and the phrase is able to mean the same thing. So we are still at the same place unless of course you can show the word can to mean did or does.

since the event in question has not happened yet, and it is a warning, the wording was used as it was.

Sorry I don't follow this in relationship to the topic. I can understand this in relation to something being deprived from me, but not in relationship to my non existance. Yes in that sense I would be deprived from existence. And so what? If one does't exist how is that punishment or a threat?

ummmm...don't you wanna live forever? that's a great threat...

The wicked rejoice at non existence.

says who? some do.

I think they rightly mock people who have little understanding of what they say. PC speech stinks.Please show how the c&p I posted is in error. I didn't show how my c&p is different from yours. That is obvious.

are you serious? dude, it's outright different.

So what makes one wrong or evil? How foolish do you think I am to not realize this? So what is your real point? Mine does appear exactly like yours.

I'll let you have it your way - this really is buger King. Isn't this being childish as you pointed out previously? I think so. Do you seem to think that I now agree with your opinion on annihilation or that gehenna is annihilated in the lake of fire? Amazing!

you are too much bro.

What did you try? To convert me?

to what?

I see this as a desire to not communicate.

seems like an attempt to me.

I've had to go back and look for what your simple non attached responses where about. Can't you do the same?

sure. i do it for you often lately.

Yes you did. I asked about your definition and got no response. I discussed the word destroy and fully destroy. I'm missing your similar response.OK I can agree without going back to look at what you're saying here.Isn't grace wonderful?[/quote]it's there.

the greek definition is destroy fully.

you can argue what that means if ya wanna, but that is what it says.

 

[zeke37]

Hey I am just passing through here on an off day.

But I have to ask if you really believe wicked souls go to heaven? I am referring to your second sentence in the second paragraph.

i believe all souls go back to God when they die.
the good on one side, the bad on the other.
both sides can see each other and even communicate.
an impossible to pass gulf inbetween
the good side is great
the bad side is not.

 

[Mikecpking]

i believe all souls go back to God when they die.
the good on one side, the bad on the other.
both sides can see each other and even communicate.
an impossible to pass gulf inbetween
the good side is great
the bad side is not.

Hi Zeke,
There is no scripture that mentions souls going back to God when they die; only ruach breath wgich is the breath of life from God.

 

[zeke37]

Ah so this really isn't a discussion, but a I'm right and your wrong childish argument. no problemo.

​

dude, in this case....yep.
you post your definition, and i'll post mine.

ummmm. it is in the STRONG'S Concordance....
maybe not in the lexicon you are using, that you claim to be the Strong's.
​

My hard copy that agrees with your net site says concise Dictionary and not lexicon which in reality turn out to be the same exact thing. The first word defining lexicon is dictionary. Thus my terminolgy and use is 100% correct.

many "lexicons" use the "Strong's" numbering system while using their own definitions.
some well meaning Christians have mis-interpreted this, and think that said definition is the actual Strong's definition.
other reprint this error....many unknowingly.

it is a comon error in these circles.

What I quoted wasn't from the concordance part of the publication. What I posted as a c&p from my site is also correct and in agreement.

what you posted was not the Strong's.

Where did I say destroy wasn't where? You must have a reading problem. Destroy is still there. I double checked. I disagreed with cause. I read every jot and title of every post in this thread.

my bad...annihilation = destroy fully

Perhaps you don't understand what a definition is. Destroy fully or to destroy isn't a definition of desdroy. It is nothing more than the translated Greek word for destroy as found in Mat 10:28 which is apollymi.

622
apollumi
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
from apo - apo 575 and the base of oleqroV - olethros 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.


575
apo
apo
apo'
a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):--(X here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.


3639
oleqroV
olethros
ol'-eth-ros
from a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. death, punishment:--destruction.

to destroy fully means just that, if it is context to our soul.
just what can exist after the soul is destroyed fully? nothing can.
​

I can find no connection between destroy an annihilate from the word destroy. So your incorrect in applying destroy to annihilate. And you're using the word destroy to mean annihilate.

in this context, yes...because we are talking about the possibility of someone's very soul going to hell and what happens to the soul in hell.
it is fully destroyed there, what ever that means.
​

it is not a secret that many confuse the Strong's for other lexicons that happen to have stolen, or use the Strong's NUMBERING system.

​

they add their OWN definition, dependig on their denom and belief.
​

So if you keep repeating yourself with no proof you think I'm gonna be intimidated to your position. My that is funny no offense intended but I'm not zactly stuipd. Cocky yes and I can affort to be.
​

​

​

two way street..you ain't changin my mind either bro.
i'm just telling you that what you posted was not the Strong's definition.
You say it is.
one of us is wrong.
no biggie.

why not?

i think it is more a matter of mis communication.
if we were one to one in person, we'd probably have no problem getting our points across

Now if I were to answer that I'd get into trouble, so I'm gonna be smart and say nothing more about the issue of us seeing eye to eye and coming to the same side of the fence. I believe that Paul says you are my enemy. Note to you and the asministration I DIDN'T SAY YOU WEREN'T OR IMPLY YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN OK.

so, i'm your enemy, even if i am a Christian?
'splain lucy?

no...all the dead who have died up till now, are in heaven now.
the faithfull get rasied back here for life ever after when Jesus leaves hevaen with them and raises them here on earth.
the evil ones get raised back here a thousand years later, for judgement where they are destroyed forever.

that is not universalism.
​

We read a different book. So sorry.

​

same book, different opinion....well, the one i like best is a KJV.

no, did you go to the site I provided?

​

I knew you didn't. And have plenty reason to believe you won't. Thus we really don't have a conversation about anything.

well, i might have,,,,,but now?/?
you don't exactly make things inviting.

but if you insist, post the link again.

Yes I did and I made comments about it.

there are plenty of good sites out there, and plenty of bad ones/misleading ones.
who's to say...depends on what you believe....

and btw, there are next to no unbiased sites or theories.
​

Hey we agree on something.

go figure.

 

[patience7]

i believe all souls go back to God when they die.
the good on one side, the bad on the other.
both sides can see each other and even communicate.
an impossible to pass gulf inbetween
the good side is great
the bad side is not.

the spirit returns "to God who gave it" (Ecc. 12:7)


Psalm 104:29b thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to dust. (body and soul)

The difference between spirit and soul are not being discerned.