Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Andrewn]

No, I see no contradiction. Probably because I take the John twelve verse as symbolic rather than explaining the actual mechanics of passing into the afterlife. John is comparing physical death and life in the next age to a seed sown in the ground and life spring forth from it. Where do you see the contradiction? Sorry if I am being thick-headed. I want to understand where you are coming from. Thanks.

In the 1st statement you said that the soul is raised out of the ground. The implication is that the soul is asleep, which is opposite to the 2nd statement.

Tell us more about the spirit being conscious.

Post #395.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the 1st statement you said that the soul is raised out of the ground. The implication is that the soul is asleep, which is opposite to the 2nd statement.


Post #395.

It wasn't my intention to imply that the soul was asleep. I think I was giving my take on that scripture.

We may be seeing the words in our discussion through our own individual lenses. I am trying to understand you from my perspective. And you are trying to understand me from your perspective. ???

My context for all of this is from the four aspects of life and death that I see.
Physical life
Physical death
Spiritual life
Spiritual death

I'll check out post #395. Thanks.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Seeds are "sown" into the ground. When the soul is raised (out of the ground/sheol/the realm of the dead) it is a spiritual body.

 

[Hmm]

Interesting discussion although I still don't see the difference between our spirit and our soul. As.I understand it, Christianity talks about our soul and body as being combined in some way. Our soul is not a “ghost in the machine” to use Descarte's term. Our soul lives in this world, and not in a separate spiritual realm just as Jesus did and so we should never be so "spiritual" that we are not concerned about the real issues of this world such as poverty. So our soul is not a separate substance from our body but neither can it be reduced and described by our body. We can't fully describe our thoughts and feelings in physical terms such as neural synaptic activity in our brains.

Our soul or consciousness seems to be its own sort of thing and it adds things to the universe such as values and meanings. What I think is odd or mysterious is that these are things that we are very certain of. We all know what we find to be beautiful or ugly, or good or bad, but we don't really know how or why. We just do.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is not true. The rational part of humans that survives death is frequently referred to as the "spirit." When Jesus was about to die, He said:

Luk 23:46 He cried out, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” And with these words he breathed his last.

My response to post #395.

Of what value/function is the soul from your perspective? What role does the soul have, both in the physical realm and the realm of the afterlife?

sawdust said: ↑
As far as I know humans are never referred to as spirits in scripture, only as souls.

 

[Saint Steven]

Interesting discussion although I still don't see the difference between our spirit and our soul. As.I understand it, Christianity talks about our soul and body as being combined in some way. Our soul is not a “ghost in the machine” to use Descarte's term. Our soul lives in this world, and not in a separate spiritual realm just as Jesus did and so we should never be so "spiritual" that we are not concerned about the real issues of this world such as poverty. So our soul is not a separate substance from our body but neither can it be reduced and described by our body. We can't fully describe our thoughts and feelings in physical terms such as neural synaptic activity in our brains.

Our soul or consciousness seems to be its own sort of thing and it adds things to the universe such as values and meanings. What I think is odd or mysterious is that these are things that we are very certain of. We all know what we find to be beautiful or ugly, or good or bad, but we don't really know how or why. We just do.

Thanks for your reply.

We may be getting hung up on terminology. I'll try to state it without the labels.

We have a physical part of our being that will eventually die.
We leave this behind when we enter the afterlife.

We have a mind that currently resides in our human brain.
The human brain will die with the physical part.

We have a personal identity that goes with us into the afterlife.
For the believer, our name is in a book. And Jesus gives us another name.

We have a spiritual part of our being in the physical realm that goes with us into the afterlife. Sometimes referred to as a spiritual body. A replacement for our physical body when it perishes.

Therefore, our personal identity, our mind and our spirit go with us into the afterlife. The physical is left behind.

 

[public hermit]

On the other hand I don't want to go too far with this.

Those of us who were raised in the church knew about heaven and hell from the youngest age. And we heard about from people we trusted. Parents, the church, society at large. Even secular music and literature take it for granted as fact.

Most haven't given it much thought. Just an uncomfortable subject that came packaged with something wonderful. Even candy-coating it as "eternal separation from God".

Saint Steven said: ↑
Yes.
There seems to be a big disconnect for those who have experienced grace toward those they consider lost.

They were overjoyed to learn about the life they have in Christ and what that means for the afterlife. But... they are happy to assign PUNISHMENT of the worst kind to those who. unlike them, didn't experience grace in this life.

That is skating awfully close to the act of unforgiveness that nullifies our own. (James 2:13)

That's a good point. It's one of those areas that needs discussion. I agree, and think a good many Christians are uncomfortable with it. I know several people that have left the church and when they say why, the doctrine of hell always comes up. Not ironically, it has a tendency to push some people away instead of drawing them closer out of fear. I think fear of never-ending hell worked and still does for some, but it becomes counter-intuitive in relation to a robust doctrine of divine grace and love. People just aren't as easily convinced the two are compatible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a good point. It's one of those areas that needs discussion. I agree, and think a good many Christians are uncomfortable with it. I know several people that have left the church and when they say why, the doctrine of hell always comes up. Not ironically, it has a tendency to push some people away instead of drawing them closer out of fear. I think fear of never-ending hell worked and still does for some, but it becomes counter-intuitive in relation to a robust doctrine of divine grace and love. People just aren't as easily convinced the two are compatible.

Personally, I left the church because my wife left the church; and it just became ridiculous to drop money into the offering plate so leaders could go on the verbal rampage among us mere pew warmers, making everyone feel guilty for not stepping up and "fulfilling their prophetic vision" for this ministry here, that ministry there.

For me, it had absolutely ZERO to do with hell or no hell or any thought about hell.

 

[public hermit]

Personally, I left the church because my wife left the church; and it just became ridiculous to drop money into the offering plate so leaders could go on the verbal rampage among us mere pew warmers, making everyone feel guilty for not stepping up and "fulfilling their prophetic vision" for this ministry here, that ministry there.

For me, it had absolutely ZERO to do with hell or no hell or any thought about hell.

That sounds like another good discussion that needs to happen. The congregation is a captive audience, subjected as it were, to a diatribe and then no opportunity for response.

Yeah, I know several who left for a number of reasons, including eternal damnation. I can think of at least four from my group of friends in the very conservative Christian university I attended. My experience with that might be unique, but If we ask ourselves, what set of issues contributes to the decline of Christianity in this culture I bet it would be one of them. I think it would be healthy for the church, in general, to revisit it, reconsider it

 

[Andrewn]

Of what value/function is the soul from your perspective? What role does the soul have, both in the physical realm and the realm of the afterlife?

You've already forgotten what I wrote about the soul . This is probably for the best.

If anyone is interested in the biblical view of the soul, it is best to check all the verses that have the Hebrew and Greek words for soul: nephesh and psyche, respectively.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds like another good discussion that needs to happen. The congregation is a captive audience, subjected as it were, to a diatribe and then no opportunity for response.

Yeah, I know several who left for a number of reasons, including eternal damnation. I can think of at least four from my group of friends in the very conservative Christian university I attended. My experience with that might be unique, but If we ask ourselves, what set of issues contributes to the decline of Christianity in this culture I bet it would be one of them. I think it would be healthy for the church, in general, to revisit it, reconsider it

I seriously doubt "they" will be revisiting it or reconsidering this other related discussion any time soon, and they'll continue to refuse to do so for various complex reasons. But oh well! That's church life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a good point. It's one of those areas that needs discussion. I agree, and think a good many Christians are uncomfortable with it. I know several people that have left the church and when they say why, the doctrine of hell always comes up. Not ironically, it has a tendency to push some people away instead of drawing them closer out of fear. I think fear of never-ending hell worked and still does for some, but it becomes counter-intuitive in relation to a robust doctrine of divine grace and love. People just aren't as easily convinced the two are compatible.

I very well understand how some individuals may be psychologically affected by a stern, overpronounced emphasis upon ECT by pastors and teachers in various evangelical churches.

However, on the flip side, it bugs me that some of you Universalist Christians start inferring that any act of subscribing to the concept of "hell as punitive" must be coming about due to some utter ignorance and/or moral flaw or character glitch within the heart and mind of the affirmer of 'hell' (....i.e. whatever the hell Hell actually is). And I say this even though, on a practical level, I'm pretty sure I'm MORE latitundiarian about the plurality of thought that manifests among Christians than most Christians.

You guys might make room for the possibility that some of us mean no ill-will to others but simply see "eternal punitive measures" as the outcome of his/her reading of the Bible, whether the hermeneutics are sound or unsound, eisegetical or exegetical.

Moreover, if there is a discussion to be had, really, it'd be one that not only fully addresses the convolutions of various hermeneutical approaches one can choose to take, but also the presence of an array of unresolved issues in the field(s) of Biblical Criticism.

But I don't see these two discussions really taking place in a robust way anywhere, whether here on CF or among many Christian Apologists.

 

[Hmm]

We have a spiritual part of our being in the physical realm that goes with us into the afterlife. Sometimes referred to as a spiritual body. A replacement for our physical body when it perishes.

Makes sense. As I understand it, we are not going to be rapturously/annoyedly zapped up to heaven when we die and float/trudge around there as disembodied spirits but we're going to be given a new spiritual body, as you say. This will imitate Christ's resurrected body - it will be a real body that can eat (fish) and be touched (Thomas) but which can also move through walls (the upper room) and change appearance or disappear (the road to Emmaus), so it's a completely different substance than we have ever experienced.

I don't know so let me ask - will we live in this transformed spiritual body on this same Earth we live on now which will also be transformed as will the whole physical universe presumably? We can't have a transformed earth circling the same old Sun along side the same old Mars and Jupiter. Is this the meaning of the new heaven and new earth?

 

[public hermit]

You guys might make room for the possibility that some of us mean no ill-will to others but simply see "eternal punitive measures" as the outcome of his/her reading of the Bible, whether the hermeneutics are sound or unsound, eisegetical or exegetical.

Moreover, if there is a discussion to be had, really, it'd be one that not only fully addresses the convolutions of various hermeneutical approaches one can choose to take, but also the presence of an array of unresolved issues in the field(s) of Biblical Criticism

Personally, I don't think sound exegesis is going to resolve the inherent ambiguity of the scriptures on this issue. That's not to say a robust and fruitful discussion would exclude exegesis, I just don't think the ambiguities are going to disappear with rightly applied exegesis.

But I do think it would be helpful for institutions to take up the question of how God deals with those outside the faith. I think the official position of churches should be somewhat agnostic, because we really don't know, and then nurture a discussion on the three possible positions (ECT, Annhiliation, and UR) or others. If churches decided to keep a position of doxastic humility by saying 'only God knows' that's fine and much better than asserting a definitive, never-ending damnation for certain, identifiable groups.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personally, I don't think sound exegesis is going to resolve the inherent ambiguity of the scriptures on this issue. That's not to say a robust and fruitful discussion would exclude exegesis, I just don't think the ambiguities are going to disappear with rightly applied exegesis.

You may be right on this point PH, but honestly, I don't know the last time I've actually seen what I'd identify as a "sound exegetical" discussion on much of any issue here on CF or even in many local churches in the chat-chat that takes place in limited time spans among this or that bible study group.

But I do think it would be helpful for institutions to take up the question of how God deals with those outside the faith. I think the official position of churches should be somewhat agnostic, because we really don't know, and then nurture a discussion on the three possible positions (ECT, Annhiliation, and UR) or others. If churches decided to keep a position of doxastic humility by saying 'only God knows' that's fine and much better than asserting a definitive, never-ending damnation for certain, identifiable groups.

Yeah, I think that would be a better approach. But it might mean that those churches have to alter their assumed epistemologies and presuppositions ... I think they're wont to do this very easily, if ever.

 

[Saint Steven]

You've already forgotten what I wrote about the soul . This is probably for the best.

If anyone is interested in the biblical view of the soul, it is best to check all the verses that have the Hebrew and Greek words for soul: nephesh and psyche, respectively.

Probably for the best?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know so let me ask - will we live in this transformed spiritual body on this same Earth we live on now which will also be transformed as will the whole physical universe presumably? We can't have a transformed earth circling the same old Sun along side the same old Mars and Jupiter. Is this the meaning of the new heaven and new earth?

That's a good question.
Since you are a maths guy, can you calculate the size of the New Jerusalem? (Revelation 21:15)
It will be located on the new earth. What size planet would sustain such a structure?

 

[Hmm]

That's a good question.
Since you are a maths guy, can you calculate the size of the New Jerusalem? (Revelation 21:15)
It will be located on the new earth. What size planet would sustain such a structure?

I guess size would have no meaning as we would no longer be in a universe with physical dimensions but I expect that the New Jerusalem would be big enough to accommodate (in the en suites) all of Team Hell but still have room for the other 99% of humanity, just as Jesus had room for the wicked and despised...

 

[zippy2006]

I think the official position of churches should be somewhat agnostic, because we really don't know, and then nurture a discussion on the three possible positions (ECT, Annhiliation, and UR) or others. If churches decided to keep a position of doxastic humility by saying 'only God knows' that's fine and much better than asserting a definitive, never-ending damnation for certain, identifiable groups.

As Philo pointed out, there are rigorous criteria that Christians use to determine doctrine (and the criteria vary from denomination to denomination, but they often relate to Scripture). The problem is that what you and others are offering are essentially non-rigorous appeals to emotion. It is something like, "ECT seems mean, therefore Christians shouldn't hold it." But such appeals to emotion are not rationally or religiously grounded. In fact, we used to recognize that such approaches are logically fallacious.

 

[Hmm]

In fact, we used to recognize that such approaches are logically fallacious.

Who's "we"? Do you speak for anyone other than yourself? If so, can you name, say, two of them? If not, have you, dare I say it, just been logically fallacious?
.

 

[zippy2006]

Who's "we"? Do you speak for anyone other than yourself? If so, can you name, say, two of them? If not, have you, dare I say it, just been logically fallacious?
.

I don't think the rational people who I am interested in engaging will oppose the claim that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. I could dig up historical testimony, but I doubt you would go through the trouble of finding the source and reading it. In this case a simple Google search should take you far.