Let's Talk About Hell (6)

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't know how you can claim that it never has been answered. After a person dies, they are resurrected to life again on the last day. Then they are judged. It isn't a different person, it is the same person.

This does not address the question. Everyone here believes in a Judgment. In the orthodox view we know the person being Judged there is the original because the soul of that original person was rejoined to a body in a real resurrection. How that can be said of the view you have described here HAS NEVER been addressed and certainly was not addressed with this last post.

If one says there is no such thing as soul which transcends our death and thereby preserves the uniqueness of each of us, and that people are "just dead" when they die, then there is nothing remaining of such a person to resurrect. Which means there is no afterlife. Which means God can ONLY recreate people.

A recreated person can look perfectly identical to the original, but in what sense can we say that is the "same" person. What part of the "nature" of this recreated person actually experienced the life of the original for which it is being Judged?

Am not suggesting God could not copy us perfectly. He could. For that matter He could do so at anytime, even before we die. Am asking how such a copy is said to be the same as the original?
Am asking how any part of that copy actually lived the life of the original.

 

[Timothew]

If one says there is no such thing as soul which transcends our death and thereby preserves the uniqueness of each of us, and that people are "just dead" when they die, then there is nothing remaining of such a person to resurrect. Which means there is no afterlife. Which means God can ONLY recreate people.

A recreated person can look perfectly identical to the original, but it what sense can we say that is the "same" person. What part of the "nature" of this recreated person actually experienced the life of the original for which it is being Judged?

Am not suggesting God could not copy us perfectly. He could. For that matter He could do so at anytime, even before we die. Am asking how such a copy is said to be the same as the original?
Am asking how any part of that copy actually lived the life of the original.

I agree with this statement:
I look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come.

I don't know HOW God does it, but I know that he does it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well that only took 4 months. Thanks for the admission.

Does the "I do not know how" part include the part where whatever you understand as a "resurrection" to be for the individual, it logically appears to have absolutely no connection to the life we live here.

 

[Timothew]

Well that only took 4 months. Thanks for the admission.

Does the "I do not know how" part include the part where whatever you understand as a "resurrection" to be for the individual, it logically appears to have absolutely no connection to the life we live here.

The connection is that the same person who died is resurrected to life.

The "I don't know part" includes the part where God returns life to the dead person. Give me a dead person and tell me to return him to life, and I'm pretty much useless. But if you bring your dead person to God, He is able to heal him. God has power over life and death. If you bring a sick person to a doctor and the doctor heals him, is the person who has been healed a different person than the person who went in? Death is not beyond God's ability to heal. It's simple for Him. I wouldn't know where to start. When I was ten years old, my motorcycle wouldn't start. I tried to fix it, but I couldn't. I went to my dad and asked him to fix it, and he did. My dad had the ability to fix my motorcycle and I didn't. God has the ability to give life to the dead and I don't. I'm just glad he does.

I'm more than happy to spend 4 months or 4 years talking to you about God's power and love.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well the question was never could God bring dead back to life or not. The question was ALWAYS is that the same individual being resurrected. Without an orthodox view of a human soul or some kind of reference to time travel am unsure how one could state that what is being "resurrected" (in my view of it recreated) is the same person.

 

[Timothew]

Well the question was never could God bring dead back to life or not. The question was ALWAYS is that the same individual being resurrected. Without an orthodox view of a human soul or some kind of reference to time travel am unsure how one could state that what is being "resurrected" (in my view of it recreated) is the same person.

According to the bible, it is the same person:
Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. John 11:1
So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, John 11:14
On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. John 11:17
Jesus said to (Martha), “Your brother will rise again.” John 11:23
Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” John 11:43-44.

See, the same man who died (Lazarus) is the man who came back to life and came out of the tomb.


Edit to add, I really think that you are over-complicating this.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not at all. It is rather simple really and I can see why one would avoid speaking of it.

In the orthodox view the soul is what makes a body a unique individual. If one could (only God can) load a human soul into any body, then that body is the same person because it is that soul which makes a person.

In the opposing view being presented here there is NOTHING remaining when people die, they are "just dead". And there is certainly NOTHING which one would call a human soul that distinguishes one individual from another. No, the soul was said to be nothing more than "breath" or "breathing" or perhaps a life force or "life" which simply returns to go when we are "just dead". As such there is nothing about such notions which make one person unique compared to another.

What are we then. Well there is nothing left of human nature in this construct but meat, bones and elecrtical impluses in our brains. Indeed many scientist and atheist claim that those electrical impluses/patterns in the brain are the ONLY thing which distinguishes us from each other. And certainly they can measure those impluses in our heads and proclaim our individuality.

So if the atheist and scientist making this same claim as the view proposed here, then that means the only thing need to remake each of us is to duplicate those patterns/impluses in our heads. Simple for God and some scientist believe one day possible for us. Why then technically we could make ourselves immortal but simply loading our individual electronic "pattern" into something to preserve it.

The question should then occur to us how in such a construct one can distinguish the original from the uploaded/copy of the original. And if our individuality is nothing more than those patterns in our heads, then certainly God could duplicate each of us right now or any time He desires. If two such copies existed at the same time, it highlights the problem with this view of our nature, human nature.

So no, just saying Lazarus is raised from the dead and one believes it does not explain how one's beliefs about the afterlife, or in this case no afterlife ("just dead"), establish whether that is Lazarus 1.0 or a 2.0. In the orthodox view it is clear it is Lazarus 1.0 because the only way Lazarus could be Lazarus is to have the SAME human soul he had before he died in a living body (whether same body or a new body). In this alternate UT view of human nature, there is no difference between Lazarus 1.0 or 2.0 or 3.0...etc. None of them are unique, yet as far as we are concerned each is a Lazarus.

 

[Timothew]

I believe that when we are resurrected to life, we are the same soul that we were when we perished. I am a soul, and when I perish I die. Then I am a dead soul. When Jesus raises me to life, I am the soul that he raises to life. Then I am a living soul again. I am the same soul after resurrection that I was before resurrection, except that Paul says that I will be raised incorruptible.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is all well and good, but as you have no definition of soul which has some part of human nature transcending death, there is still nothing connecting what "perishes" at death with what supposedly "raised". In fact one cannot speak of "raised" in that construct after just admitting there is nothing remaining of the dead to be raised.

One can say it is the same person, but there is nothing in the construct other than one's word that it is the same person. Also nothing differentiating this idea from many like it in the atheistic and scientific world which as the individual as nothing more than a sack of meat, bones and some electrical impluses. And when we come right down to it, it would ONLY be the electrical impluses by which they would distinguish one individual from another.

 

[Fascinated With God]

According to the bible, it is the same person:
Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. John 11:1
So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, John 11:14
On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. John 11:17
Jesus said to (Martha), “Your brother will rise again.” John 11:23
Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” John 11:43-44.

See, the same man who died (Lazarus) is the man who came back to life and came out of the tomb.


Edit to add, I really think that you are over-complicating this.

I don't know how valid his point is, but you definitely aren't addressing it.

If one ceases to exist, a destroyed natural body (psychikos), and then much later a new spiritual body (pneumatikos) is created in a completely different context both internally and externally, what is the connection? [Greek from 1 Cor 15:44]

Your answer sounds to me more like rerunning an old program on a new faster computer rather than anything I would think of as true humanity.


.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I would agree the view presented is not the same humanity most Christians believe in, and it as yet has not been differeniate from what many atheist and scientest would describe as something uploadable (if we had the ability) and that merely replicating it would "create" the "same" person.

Since that process could be repeated (if we had that ability) creating another "same" person then clearly there is in no sense a concept of an unique individual in that construct. How Tim's concept of human nature is any different has not been answered.

 

[Timothew]

I don't know how valid his point is, but you definitely aren't addressing it.

If one ceases to exist, a destroyed natural body (psychikos), and then much later a new spiritual body (pneumatikos) is created in a completely different context both internally and externally, what is the connection? [Greek from 1 Cor 15:44]

Your answer sounds to me more like rerunning an old program on a new faster computer rather than anything I would think of as true humanity.


.

How do I prove that there is NOT a disembodied part of a person called a soul that continues to live when the person dies? All I can say is that the bible doesn't say that there is a soul that can live when the person is dead. I can't prove a negative. I can't pick up a soul and say "see, it doesn't exist." I've shown how the word "soul" is often used to mean "the person". I've shown that the Bible doesn't talk about a disembodied soul that survives death. So now, it's up to DrBubbaLove. He needs to prove that there IS a disembodied part of a person called a soul that continues to live when the person dies. If he can do that, then he will have a point that anyone who doesn't have this part can't be resurrected.

 

[someguy14]

God is life and pain doesnt exist in life silly.
Eternal death is a scary thing, only for those that serve wickedness.
Wickedness "continueing to live" ha ha ha.
Life is good.
Where wickedness is going is absence from life.
The demons tremble.

 

[Timothew]

I would agree the view presented is not the same humanity most Christians believe in, and it as yet has not been differeniate from what many atheist and scientest would describe as something uploadable (if we had the ability) and that merely replicating it would "create" the "same" person.

Since that process could be repeated (if we had that ability) creating another "same" person then clearly there is in no sense a concept of an unique individual in that construct. How Tim's concept of human nature is any different has not been answered.

The difference in my view and the atheists' view is that they do not believe that the person will be resurrected and live again, while I believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of the atheist view and I believe that the person WILL be resurrected and live again.

IF I haven't answered this before, sorry. BUT I know that I have not been lax in making my point clear that the dead ARE raised to life again. SO I don't really appreciate your attempts to say that I have not answered how my POV is different from the atheists. Do atheists believe that God will raise the dead to life? You have never answered that question.

 

[Timothew]

God is life and pain doesnt exist in life silly.
Eternal death is a scary thing, only for those that serve wickedness.

"Pain doesn't exist in life." I'm sorry but you are in error. Pain does exist in life. I agree that eternal death is a scary thing, but that doesn't make it untrue. Only the redeemed get to have eternal life. Those that serve wickedness will perish and go to their eternal death.

Please do not call me silly, it offends me. Thanks.
Sensible people control their temper; they earn respect by overlooking wrongs. Proverbs 19:11

 

[strangertoo]

" Only the redeemed get to have eternal life.

But all are redeemed, but it's a power process, thus done in stages , so the firstborn few [Matt 7:14] create the kingdom for Jesus where the many destroyed in this earth [Matt 7:13] have countless many saved LATER -Rev 7:9-10 ...

else consider why does God resurrect everyone from hell [Rev 20:13] if they were judged by being destroyed for sin in this earth ... what point in all the trouble of resurrecting them if they are already judged and condemned ?

why does scripture say the wages of sin are death if the wages of sin are eternal torment without death ???

who do the few saints of this earth serve as kings and priests in Jesus' kingdom if not the countless many freed of sin by death [Rom 6:7] and ALL released from hell [Rev 20:13] ?

Those that serve wickedness will perish and go to their eternal death.

Jesus says they will ALL be freed from hell [Rev 20:13] , free of sin by its wages paid in death [Rom 6:7]... and be judged by works in teh rihteoius kingdom of Love of Jesus christ where billions are saved [Rev 7:9-10] who clearly were all destroyed in this earth [Matt 7:13] ... how? Jesus showed the way , he was destroyed ['apoleia'] in crucifixion and came out of hell in resurrection to the body [from the spirit, much like the creation of Adam from the spirit... for the spirit is of God, endless, indestructible... yet god requires that it manifest as flesh until it perfects Love in life... so indeed no-one even begins the process of salvation until they stop abusing with sin... sin just brings another death to free one from sin to try again to Love... all punishment is caused by sin and is in life , not death... burning the dead [as in cremation for instance] does not punish them at all... not at all...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The difference in my view and the atheists' view is that they do not believe that the person will be resurrected and live again, while I believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of the atheist view and I believe that the person WILL be resurrected and live again.

IF I haven't answered this before, sorry. BUT I know that I have not been lax in making my point clear that the dead ARE raised to life again. SO I don't really appreciate your attempts to say that I have not answered how my POV is different from the atheists. Do atheists believe that God will raise the dead to life? You have never answered that question.

Atheist by definition do not believe in God, so the thought of asking or needing to answer such a question would not occur to me.

Again, if the only difference between one's view and that of many atheist/scientist is that one believes God will recreate people then there is as we keep saying no difference at all except to say there is a God and He can copy us.

Even some scientist have said if we can advance far enough that we can also "copy" a person by simply replicating the memories and processes of each individuals mind. So if the only difference in one's view of a "resurrection" is the claim that it is God doing the replicating, I would still have to say that is splitting hairs as far as differentiating what makes us individuals.

And once again, FWIW I too believe God could perfectly duplicate each of us, I just would not call that a "resurrection" nor would I think of such a process as happening to me as "me" living again.

 

[Timothew]

Atheist by definition do not believe in God, so the thought of asking or needing to answer such a question would not occur to me.

Humor me, please and answer the question.
Do atheists believe that God will raise the dead to life?

Then after you answer that question, tell me one more time that there is no difference between what I believe and what atheists believe.

You wouldn't put up with misrepresentation of your position, why should I?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Humor me, please and answer the question.
Do atheists believe that God will raise the dead to life?

Then after you answer that question, tell me one more time that there is no difference between what I believe and what atheists believe.

You wouldn't put up with misrepresentation of your position, why should I?

Ok, but I thought you had it made your position very clear and I doubt you will like the answer or think it very funny.

Your view is identical to that of many atheist and scientist regarding the nature of humans and what occurs when we "just die". As you stated the ONLY difference is that in your view those who are "just dead" are recreated by God.

You somehow see that process as a "resurrection" of the same person, even though just like the atheist and scientist holding the same view of human nature, there is nothing about the "just dead" to be "raised", nothing to connect this new creation to the original, nothing because in your own words we all perish at death so there is nothing left, nothing remaining which could connect the new creation, nothing to connect this duplicate to the original that has perished.

Do atheist and some scientist believe God will recreate the "just dead" as you do? Of course not, they do not believe in God.

However, some of them do believe, just as you do, that the "just dead" and even the living can be duplicated if we just knew how to perfectly create the same electronic wiring and impluses of the individuals brain and store it in something else.

They would no doubt also claim that at the instant they were able to do so, that new creation would in every way be the "same" as the original (at least at the moment it was created) ndeed even believing it is the original. Going forward in time is another matter). They would also admit that such a new creation could exist along side the original (or without it), which further supports that this whole construct is not the same as the notion of an "afterlife" for the original at all. It is simply a duplication.

One could say that to the extent one's memories could be "made" to continue forever in this hypothetical "new creation" the atheist/scientist could claim that for all practical purposes the original still "exists". But as "existence" in this construct is clearly nothing like what Christians see as a human being or human nature, I do not see how one could equate such a construct with a real "afterlife" or "resurrection".

So it your view the same as the atheist or some scientist? No, not in regards to there being a God that can really resurrection people (orthodox view) or recreate people. But as many of them believe that one day man will be able to do the same thing you are saying God does, (they would say probably without a body, at least initially) but the two views of such an "afterlife" would merge at that point or soon after. Which is why many here keep suggesting there is no difference other than a belief in God doing do instead of science.

 

[Timothew]

Do atheist and some scientist believe God will recreate the "just dead" as you do? Of course not, they do not believe in God.

So now you have your answer. They believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I believe.