Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 667
  • Darwins +102/-1

Ok, thanks.  I'll clarify my belief for you and we can go from there.  Some of this (especially regarding animals) is my own personal belief, based on the bible and observation of life.

Why would you do that? The bible doesn't demonstrate anything regarding animals and life, it merely asserts stuff - stuff that has been shown to be wrong. Just stick with what's been observed instead of adding in this unwarranted claim to authority and you'll avoid all of this contradiction and compartmentalising.

Life on earth with a soul and living body = Humans

So the human body is living without a soul?

Life on earth without a soul = Plants and some lower animals, reptiles, insects, etc.

OK, so these animals all manage to be have a living body without a soul.
Life on earth with soulish aspects = Animals that can relate to humans. Dogs, primates, dolphins, etc

"Soulish"?! WTF is that? Can you not see what you're doing here - did it not spring out to you as you typed it? It's as if you are grading the notion of having a soul. You've turned something, which is a digital position, into an analogue position. Surely you either have a soul or not. If you're saying that these animals manage to exude "soulish" qualities, then it points to the idea that nature alone has the ability to evolve these qualities. Why then, do you put a halt to that and claim that for it to be a full, blown out soul, god has to stick his oar in and intervene?
You believe nature was created by god anyway, so finding it difficult to harmonise the qualities of a full soul with nature is just saying that you believe god couldn't (or wouldn't) create nature in the first place to allow for a full soul to be a product of nature. It's a very strange idea - an idea, that to me, is there to fit with what you believe, but only because you haven't thought about it properly.

Think about it:
God creates nature;
Nature includes evolution;
Evolution has the ability to create "soulish" qualities;
Evolution doesn't have the ability to create a soul;
God has to intervene in the nature he created for bodies to harbour a soul.

And he couldn't have created nature in the first place to be able to create a soul because
.....because it fits your belief system for him not to. It really is convoluted nonsense.

Eternal life, with a soul and eventual resurrected body = Those humans accepting of Christ's attonement for sin

What is the resurrected body made of? Is it physical or non-physical? If the former, how does it differ from our current body - and is it classed as alive without a soul, and if it is the latter, how does it differ from a soul?

Eternal death, consciousness without a body, soul only = Those human souls separated from God for all eternity.

Right, so it is clear from this that a soul by itself is alive. This means that humans alive now in this world are alive twice if the human body is classed as alive even without a soul, which you do as you have stated above with "living body". Why is this necessary for humans, and why don't all these other animals that don't have a soul not get the chance to have an eternal life, just because they haven't evolved enough for god to interject and stick a soul in their bodies? It's almost as if the ability to have "soul" qualities follows evolution via natural selection....

My statement about the complexity of life was in regard to the observable life on earth, including plants, animals, humans.  Also the complexity revealed to us through science and the microscopic organisms that can be observed with modern technology. It was not a statement about the immaterial soul.

This brings us back to your original statement, where you stated that the complexity of life draws you to believe there is a designer, and I pondered whether you would still be drawn to believe there was a designer even if you didn't consider life complex. From what you have said, the answer is clearly yes, because you believe that life also exists as an immaterial soul. Your only get out is to say that an immaterial soul is also complex life, but if you were to do that then you pop off into infinite regress by being drawn to believe there is a god designer and creator.

I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive.  But the soul never dies. The body dies.

Then the body is, and always has been, redundant. Souls don't need bodies to be alive - bodies need souls to be alive, but then you simultaneously believe that bodies are also alive without a soul. This is all very confusing. You must really have to do some Olympic gold style mental gymnastics to square all these circles you have created for yourself.
I do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms

Why wouldn't you? You look at observable life and don't think humans evolved from "lower" (whatever that means) life forms? You must be looking at a different reality to me. Oh no, wait, I see what you're doing. You're looking at observable life and it doesn't square with what the bible says, and since you think the bible supersedes anything you observe, you go with that and chuck out anything that contradicts it, even glaringly so. Seriously, just chuck the bible out. It is wrong, plain and simple. If not, and you're going to stick with it, please don't come on here pretending that you are using observable life in order to gain an understanding of life and evolution.

I believe in special creation as stated in the Genesis account.  That God made the body, and breathed life (soul) into Adam.

*Ad hom aware*

Then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are. Like I've said already, you believe that god has to intervene in his own creation in order for a soul to exist in this world, and you base this all on words written in a book - a book for which you believe is divinely inspired. It's circular, unevidenced, faith based tosh.

I believe that while God could have made the earth and all life in 6 literal days, I don't see the evidence that He did it that way. I consider my beliefs to be old earth, old universe, special creation by God.

This is more evidence that goes to show that all you are doing is believing what you believe because you want to believe it. Yes, god could have done anything any way he wanted. You are taking bits from what we have discovered (old earth, old universe) and ignoring what the bible states about that, even though you acknowledge that god could have made the earth in a literal 6 days. However, then on the other hand, you are ignoring what we have discovered (human evolution) and take a punt on what the bible says about how humans have come about.

This belief system of yours is all of your own making. You really are just believing what you want to believe, no matter how contradictory it is and no matter how much it goes against what can be observed and measured. This is the big problem that all theists face, all because they believe in an all powerful, omnipotent being that can do anything. You see, at some point you all go, "well, he could've done that, but he didn't, and I know this because my special ancient text tells me so". Then you get the cherry pickers like yourself, who are pinning everything on this text, but only on occasion. I despair, really I do.
Changed Change Reason Date