Jazzns' History of Belief

Rahvin, to make it a little more clear about what I mean.(forgive me for talking so as a matter of factly btw).Just like God is a spirit, He represents the Spirit. Jesus represent the body, and the Holy spirit the soul. A triune being. The trinity.We are three dementional too. Spirit, soul, body.Before I got saved, my spirit man was dead to God. I was ruled by my emotions, my will, my feelings, my body. Now that im born again the spirit man is alive but my body and soul are not new like my spirit is. So i need to "renew" my mind with the word (Bible) and my body is not redemed but dying and will die, so it will always be at war with my spirit man.IOW, my mind, will emotions(soul) and my body teamed up on me before I got saved. Now, my spirit man is involved. It's a battle and a fight and sometimes I lose but the more I feed my soul with what God says about me and my situations the more it obeys.So, when I get to heaven, I will be functioning as a complete being. A new body, my already new spirit and a restored soul. Everything will be functioning as perfectly as God created us to function. We will have memories, emotions, feelinfs, but won;t be ruled by them, they will be a good thing.Althought we will not "feel" the same then as we do now. It will be a different kind of thinking and feeling. That's enough for now. It will be different for everyone. The people not in Heaven will not be funtioning the same as the people in Heaven, also.I can probably make a better case for the soul, minus just saying we have a soul and saying what I said, but for now I just wanted to let you know you have a soul. Aren't you excited?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Ok, thanks Jazzns. I'll read some more of your comments first.

They are independant of one another, according to Scripture.Here are some Scripture verses: That one particular verse is the one I prayed over my shoulder, that was healed. The battle for the soul is over once someone accepts Christ. There is a distinction in Scripture about our soul and body and spirit.Here are a few about the body: Here's a long one but good: Well, that's enough. Clearly Scripture teaches a new body is on the way to go with our soul and spirit.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

My gut response was to say further but after reading what you meant by this question I will have a different answer. I would say that my beliefs lie upon a tangent to the spectrum of "closer or further" from god. In short, I reject the question. It doesn't make sense even in your definitional setting where all "good" things are closer to god and all "bad" things are not. And yet all I see when you talk about "His ideals" is a projection of your own ideals onto your understanding of this particular mythology. You don't have any reason for why love for these ideals must be externalized to a person. Given what you say later, perhaps it doesn't matter. Presumably, in your ethos, someone who is just tries to be a good person their entire life will do just fine in the after life without the need to attribute their values to a deity. What if I reject both? What if I reject the notion that what is considered "good" should be defined by ancient mythology? I still believe in charity and community but I sure am not going to give a thief my coat or let a guy punch me in the face. Where does that put me on the spectrum of being "closer" to god? Ultimatly, you are just begging the question. I can't answer that in the spirit that it was asked without assuming that one of the god's is real. You are just coloring the world with gods instead of the standard adjectives for what we consider good and bad. They don't even have an identity, they just represent amorphus ideals that align with your own morality. You quote Lewis and you say it is a choice but what is interesting about the standard Christian belief is that the choice must be made in ignorance of the true nature of the afterlife. Will those who were selfish during their life be able to see their error and be saved during judgement? If the content of our character is what matters, what is so special about the massivly insignificant time that we spend as mortals that it should determine our fortune for eternity?Can our character not change in the afterlife? Can someone who spends the equivalent of a mortal lifetime in hell not simply come to the heartfelt conclusion that they were wrong and then be saved?Explain how this choice works exactly and how do you know? But what do you do with the majority of the people in this community who quite likely reject your somewhat deist interpretation of Christianity? Its sort of like being a Log Cabin Republican. These people don't believe like you do. Christians that I am familiar with believe in salvation by baptism and repentence according to a much more literal understanding of the same mythology you are using to suggest that a total heretic could still be saved.Are there not better communities that align with your sense of faith? Do you have a community of believers that think like you do or are you a part of a community where you are unique in your views?As a followup to the theme of my original questions, what is hell going to be like for those that do go there? Is it forever? How bad/painful/lonley is it? How do you know?

Hi Chuck,Matter-of-fact speaking isn't a problem. We all know at the outset that we have different sets of beliefs, it's fine for you to make statements of your belief as if you actually believe them.But I'd just like to focus in on one little bit: You seem to be defining the "soul" as the "will, emotions, and intellect."If the "soul" is independent of the brain, and governs your emotions, your will, and your intellect......then why does brain damage so drastically effect emotions, will, and intellect? If intellect is dependent not on the brain but rather on an intangible component, then why does brain damage affect intellect? If emotions are not resident in the brain, but rather the intangible "soul," why do psychoactive medications have the ability to completely change a person's emotional state?If the "soul" takes care of those functions, then the brain should be irrelevant for them, shouldn't it? Chuck, I'm a former Christian. I used to have beliefs similar to your own. I used to believe in souls, and spirits, and a god, and so on. Went to church every week, read and studied the Bible outside of church, etc. Went through confirmation.You aren't revealing "exciting new news" to me. I previously had those beliefs, and I've rejected them. I do not believe that any gods exist. I don't believe any such thing as a "soul" in the traditionally religious sense exists in reality.I'm happy to discuss these topics with you, and I find the debate enjoyable. Friendly argument is fun for me, and the mental exercise of constantly looking for logical fallacies and critical analysis of competing claims is, I think, good for all of us. But really, you can lay off the attempted conversion. Unless you can show me real evidence that I can verify, I'm not at all likely to embrace beliefs that I've previously rejected as irrational and likely false.

I frankly don’t see it as about what is good specifically and what isn’t. As I’ve said before, we choose between selfish love or unselfish love. Nobody does either completely but which is it that ultimately brings you joy, peace and contentment.My beef with fundamentalists is they confuse believing with believing in. Doctrine may be important but it isn’t the whole picture at all. It is about the world we want and how we respond to that call. Do we believe in a world characterized by love, peace, joy, forgiveness, mercy, truth etc, as taught and lived by Jesus, or do we believe in a world characterized by the concept of looking out for number one’ or maybe if it feels good do it. Except that my faith has to a large degree formed my idea of morality. I have a very definite answer for that. I don’t know! The fundamentalists on this forum like to spell out in perfect detail what’s going to happen. All that the Bible is clear on concerning our future is that in the end the Earth will be renewed in a great act of re-creation and that we will have resurrected bodies. In some way the heavenly dimension and our earthly one will be brought together. I have not the foggiest idea of when or how. There are those who will be a part of that and it appears there will those who won’t.Frankly I find that speculating about the next life interesting but what it is that really matters is where my heart is now and where it will be for the rest of life. That’s all I can control. What happens after I’m gone is something I will deal with then. For now, I just pray that I will be given a heart that desires humble justice and kindness, and hopefully I will respond to that still small voice. If I do that the rest will look after itself.I think that it is quite possible that after a life time here living selfishly it may be impossible for us to actually have a change of heart after we shuffle off but I don’t pretend to know that to be the case. I certainly don’t see myself as a deist at all. I am definitely theistic. I’m just prepared to agree that there are all sorts of questions about God that we don’t have answers to. As to what I do with those Christians who don’t agree with me is talk to them just like I’m talking to you. I simply contend that they misunderstand how the Bible is to be read and understood, so it follows that I disagree with their doctrine. I think my thinking would be similar to the majority of those in my congregation. I belong to an orthodox Anglican church. I think that the US has more Christians that subscribe to the version of Christianity that you describe than the rest of the world does. Frankly I don’t consider those views mainstream. My views are generally consistent with C S Lewis and I am very much influenced by N T Wright. There are a considerable number of talks and articles by him on the linked site. Here is a link to a good book by Timothy Keller. It has a good section about hell in it. Once again, I don’t know. My understanding though, is that it would be an existence where the primary characteristic of the society would be the love of self.

Interesting line of thoughts, and interesting responses! My 2 cents:1) Closer or further from God---How is it logically possible, given that God is omnipresent? I understand the concept GDR gives, however. My short answer is that I feel closer to my own belief and sanity without so much of a leap of faith...does that make any sense? This got me to thinking what rejection of such a question would mean. For me, staying in the agnostic "I don't know" place is more sane than outright rejection...simply based upon absence of evidence. When I try and "talk with God" I am well aware that His presence is not usually confirmed through any feelings...but to reject the possibility of His reality requires a bold step of faith in a direction I choose not to go. In short, I think that I reject the idea of being OK with the possibility that God didn't exist. Which for me means why reject an unknown? I think the difference between Jazzns and myself is that he was unafraid to reject a concept that was not real to him...I was fearful of even considering such a possibility. I really like your line of reasoning, here. These are great questions! Perhaps one answer is that we don't have an infinite amount of time to decide. Which begs the question of how much time is enough?

I don't think that question is relevant at all.What possible crime or "decision" could ever be made that would justify the punishment of being thrown into the "lake of fire" described in Revelations?Let's put this in perspective, and talk about Hitler. I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, so I should avoid Godwin's Law.The Holocaust is estimated to have murdered somewhere around 21 million people in the most horrible ways imaginable. You can't get a whole lot worse than being starved and tortured to death systematically, and I don't think we'll see a whole lot of argument there.But if Adolf Hitler was sent to burn "alive" in Hell for a hundred years for every single victim his regime brutally murdered, a full lifetime of torture for every single victim...he'd still not have finished receiving his punishment.If then he spent another thousand years for each and every one, ten lifetimes of nothing but excruciating, never-ending pain and torture for each and every victim, he still wouldn't be anywhere close to the end of his suffering.I don't think even Hitler deserves an infinite amount of punishment for what can only possibly have been a finite crime, regardless of how large.I can't think of any crime ever in any amount that could be committed in a human lifespan, even if the crime was repeated a thousand times a minute from sunup to sundown every day of a person's life, that would justify eternal punishment.Even if you don't believe in the "fire and brimstone" version of Hell, if you believe that Hell is a punishment of any kind, I still cannot fathom what crime could be so terrible as to justify that punishment for eternity.To punish a person for eternity is infinitely worse than sentencing a person to torture and execution for stealing a pack of gum; that would at least be a finite amount of punishment, it would have an end, even if the sum total of suffering was vastly out of proportion to the crime. Eternal punishment has no end, the ratio of suffering received to suffering caused is infinity to x, it's not even describable how unethically wrong that is under any illusion of a rational system of punishment. It's not an "eye for an eye," it's not even both eyes for an eye or dismemberment for a scratch, eternal punishment cannot even be compared to any possible crime committed in a finite lifetime.Even if the punishment is minor, if instead of burning in a lake of fire forever you "only" have to be sad and lonely forever, eventually the suffering you experience over eternity will have to overwhelm whatever was caused by your crime in a finite lifespan, simply because the punishment never ends and your finite lifespan did!What possible choice or crime could any person ever commit that would ever justify an eternal punishment of any sort at all?

What if the concept of Hell is merely a willful choice to not share communion (common union or existence) with God? Besides, who is charged to do the judging?

Only if you're reading a different Bible from the one I read.But what's actually entailed by "not sharing communion with God?" What would existence be like? Would I be alone, or with others who made similar "choices?" Do we get a world to live in, or do we just float in an endless void? Do you know? It's somewhat relevant information to making such a significant choice, don't you think, since after death you can never change your mind?

I prefer to discuss God and belief concepts philosophically and openly speculative rather than limit them to the Bible...though that can be one guideline. Great question to think about! Assuming that for the moment and purposes of this discussion, God is a possibility and a relationship in everyone's life that must be accepted, ignored, obeyed, (or perhaps) challenged. Who would you prefer being "in communion" or contact with? Family? Close friends? Beer buddies? ex-wives? Chinese?

But speculation with no basis is useless. We might as well talk about a "choice" to be separate from Leonardo of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for all eternity. Virtually anything is conceivable. Actual popular religious beliefs at least provide some basis upon which to speculate, even if their own frameworks are themselves unfounded. Does a "relationship" with God alter my physical state? The Bible talks about a great city, and mansions, and so on, as opposed to an endless void. Would an existence apart from God be similar to living on Earth for eternity, with all the other people who similarly chose to be separate? Would there still be suffering? Does each person instead exist alone in their own little unbounded pocket Universe, floating uselessly in the solitude of an endless void? Does everyone wind up burning in a lake of burning sulfur? Are we forced to watch endless reruns of Friends, or the 700 Club?Are all things equal, except that in one case you get to have a direct relationship with God, and in the other you don't?Without knowing things like that, a decision is impossible. People, in general. Even though the vast majority of humanity frustrates and annoys me, human beings are social animals, and we don't do well in solitude. Friends and family would be a good start, my fiance in particular, but honestly just not being alone is a pretty big requirement for human sanity. Ever watched a documentary on people in solitary confinement? It's not the small spaces that get to them, it's the loneliness, and it can (and often does) lead to psychosis. Being alone for an extended amount of time is torture in and of itself.And I happen to get along just fine with my ex-wife as long as we don't live together, thank you very much.

One of the problems I see is this. The fundamentalists say that by reading the Bible as if it was dictated by God are able to come up with all the answers. An atheist then is able quite rightly point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs. However, it seems when a Christian doesn’t have all the answers then you are critical of that as well.I am not going to have all the answers partly because all the answers aren’t there to be had.If we read the Bible in the I believe God intends, as narratives within a metanarrative, and if we understand Jesus is the word of God and read the OT through that lens then we get a picture that is sufficient for our understanding, but still we will be far from having all the answers.The Christian God is a God who is loving, understanding and above all just. God wants us to reflect that image of Him into all of creation. We make choices about whether we wish to reflect God’s image or not, and somehow in ways that I don’t understand those choices matter. The thing is that God is just, and in the end what happens to us after the entropic world that we know is renewed will remain a mystery to us, but I have faith that we will see perfect justice done.

I'm not critical of any answer. I;m critical of the answers that have been provided. I'm critical of any form of eternal torture, and I cannot answer a question when I don;t have even minimal facts upon which to base a response.If the Bible said that the unfaithful and sinners were simply punished in accordance with their crimes (meaning receiving at MOST the same amount of suffering caused) and then allowed to join everyone else in heaven, I would be MUCH less critical. If the Bible said that the "choice" of whether to have a relationship with God was non-binding, that the decision could change at any time during the eternal afterlife, I would be less critical.But those have not been the answers given.Your words suggest that I'm just going to criticize regardless of the response, that there is no answer that would please me, and that's just not the case. The problem is that the only answers that have been given are either "I don't know" or something so unethical that I'm disgusted that anyone calls such an idea "justice." How can you maintain that view of God when the Bible is filled with stories like killing a man for ejaculating on the ground, or afflicting a man with horrible sores and killing off his family just to see if he would still praise God, or drowning the entire population of the Earth, and so on? Even if you maintain that these are just stories and that they didn't actually happen, what kind of monster uses stories of capricious mass murder to prove how loving he is? If God is "infinitely just," then why even tell a story about killing every firstborn child in Egypt? Why even fantasize about a lake of fire? Is your God trying to tell us how unethical he totally could have been in those stories? Is the lesson of the Bible "Gee, sure glad he isn't actually at all like those stories say he is?"How can you reconcile that? "God is love, he just likes to really scare us?"Maybe "he only hits me because he loves me?"When we think of other "good and just" characters, we don't typically think of them murdering children, not even in a fictional story. Why then does the holy book of a "perfectly good and just God" contain so many stories of his injustice?

Why isn’t I don’t know an acceptable answer. If I ask a scientist what it is that caused the singularity to suddenly expand at time =0, he might come up with theories, but it would be honest to add that ultimately he/she doesn’t know. I can come up with theories about hell but ultimately I don’t know, but I do trust in a loving and just God. I understand the entire Bible in context to be a metanarrative that is the story of God relating to His image bearing creatures. His call to us is that we reflect His image, the image of love and justice into the world. An overview of the metanarrative would run like this. Creation — Israel and the Prophets — Jesus — the church — the renewal of all things. That metanarrative that is the Bible is made up of a series of narratives, (as well as some poetry, drama etc), as told by a number of different writers throughout history. These narrative are told by a number of writers inspired to write the stories of the people of the era and their understanding of their own times and histories. As a result, the entire Bible is written in a way that is both personally and culturally influenced. Yes I believe that God’s revelation is involved and is reflected in the stories, but so are the influences of the pagan nations around them. Sometimes they actually worshipped other gods but often they simply transferred other beliefs on to Yahweh, in ways that suited their own purposes. The societal means of getting rid of undesirables was public stoning and so when it suited their purposes some bright light would suggest that this is what Yahweh wanted. If they wanted to slaughter their neighbour to take the land and/or goods, then again someone would suggest that Yahweh wanted this done and it would become part of the story.God’s solution to the problem was Jesus. In reading through the Gospels we can see that the vast majority of quotes by Jesus have an OT reference. Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and at the same time gave us teaching that allows us to sort out what was of God in those scriptures and what was of man.Back to hell then, (figuratively speaking ). Let us for a second assume that the God of the OT that sanctioned genocide and public stoning represented an accurate picture of the God that created us. I find the idea repugnant. Why would I worship a God like that? Why would I want to spend eternity with a God like that? If that is heaven I don’t want it. However there are those in this world who have willingly followed human leaders like that and so the idea of spending eternity with a god like that might not sound like such a bad idea.I believe in a God who believes that as part of wanting us to be kind and just wants us to be forgiving. For some the idea of giving up the need for revenge is unthinkable yet that would be a characteristic of this renewed creation. I have often been told on this forum that I’m weak for having to have a sky Daddy to look after me. There will be those whose pride just won’t allow them to accept a world characterized and ruled by Jesus, a man whose idea of leading was to wash the feet of His followers. Would it be the act of a loving God to force people into a situation for eternity that they choose to reject?My understanding of hell is that it is an existence that is characterized by the hearts of those that reject the renewed world characterized by the love as expressed through Jesus. For most of us that sounds like an existence that would be unpleasant in the extreme but for many it seems that either that, or even final and total death, would be preferable, to an eternity with God.