Hello IBIJ
 
In the “Evolution” thread you invited me to start a new post with the topic
 
“What happens after death backed up by whatever source you choose to use”
 
Let’s take it as read that you are talking about the consciousness, or soul as some would call it, rather than the body - the effects of death thereupon being pretty well accepted by everyone as far as I'm aware.
 
But then I’ve got a problem
 
There are no “sources" that I trust enough to be able to base a decent arguement on.
 
There are a number of purported sources, the Bible, the Koran and the writings of Ron Hubbard being a few examples. I don't subscribe to any of them.
 
I take a position that the “right” answer to your question is both unknown and unknowable.
 
It might help if I make my own position clear on this and related issues to save any further confusion
 
Two mutually exclusive conditions are possible
(a) God exists
(b) God doesn’t exist
 
I don’t know which is right....it doesn’t matter..either is equally incredible
 
Spud
 

 
Ahhh, then allow me to enlighten you, my son!!
 
perhaps you have not heard of "Heaven's Gate", a fine a religous group of people there ever was. These folks are (sorry, WERE) SOoooooo enlightened!
 
Wikipedia Link
 
 
On your knees and be saved, my son!! All of this is true because Marshall Applewhite SAID so!
 
Have FAITH in Father Applewhite, comets do return and you must be prepared!
 
Oh, and donations of $100,000 are garciously accepted,,,
 
 
 
 
 
Why me, Lord???

I reckon that they must have been the channelling the "Simpons" ep when Homer joined, what I think was called "The Movementatrians" ....or possibly the other way round.....

Hi SPUD
 
Thanks for taking the challenge.
 
If I were a betting man I'd bet that we won't be able to hold this debate without "smart" answers being interjected. Given that this has already taken place I'm pretty safe in making this statement.
 
At any rate...
 
YOU SAID:
Let s take it as read that you are talking about the consciousness, or soul as some would call it, rather than the body - the effects of death thereupon being pretty well accepted by everyone as far as I'm aware.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Actually, I do not believe their is a marked difference between the soul and the body.
 
Evidance...
 
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
Therefore, the idea of people going to Heaven immediately upon death is a teaching of religiousity not the Bible.
 
YOU SAID:
There are no sources" that I trust enough to be able to base a decent arguement on.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Herein is the dilema. My answer to this equation is to compare Scripture with secular history allowing prophecy to validate the positions of the Bible. Making a thourough examination of this process is enough for me to declare the Bible a viable authority in it's own right. I understand that everyone does not agree, but given the other possible answers for me it really is the only one that makes logical sense. The problem is that so many people have made the Bible say things it clearly does not say with the result of mass confusion instead of mass conversion.
 
Bottom line... sooner or later a person must believe a chair will hold them from falling. Just because they have experienced a chair not doing so doesn't mean they should no longer trust the chair does it?
 
YOU SAID
Two mutually exclusive conditions are possible
(a) God exists
(b) God doesn t exist
I don t know which is right....it doesn t matter..either is equally incredible
 
MY RESPONSE
If (A) and God exists then wouldn't it be in our best interest to know what He wants us to do?
 
If (B) and God does not exist what harm has been done by my choosing to live a morally upright lifestyle?
 
Cheers
IBIJ
 
 
 
 

'IBIJ,' excerpt post: "Actually, I do not believe their is a marked difference between the soul and the body.

Evidence...

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Therefore, the idea of people going to Heaven immediately upon death is a teaching of religiousity not the Bible.
 
 
'HoM' replys: D-u-h?!.. "No marked difference"{?} What about this TWO-step process, same Genesis excerpt, of God creating man, in that same verse?! ie. #1. "God formed man of the dust of the ground"; and, #2.-'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'; and Only Then, did man become a living soul{!}
 
This is more like a 3rd {maybe 4th} grade, level of understanding English, {my apologies, to most of you 'out there'}; but it Should be fairly obvious, 'IBIJ', that the second step; ie. 'God breathed' into "Adam," {in this case}, the 'breath of life,' is referring to "Adam's" {or mans'} soul!
 
That is doesn't specifically say the word "soul" in that passage, {which might be your counter-argument}, would be 'imho,' a case of 'splitting hairs' {if you will}; since, there are numerous synonyms {different words, meaning the same thing}, in English, and other languages, that are freely substituted, one-for-another, All the time!

Dear IBIJ
 
As I think I said earlier, I don't accept the Bible as a credible source although I do note that HOM quote of same verse/bit? seems to have two extra words in it which he seems to think proves his point more so than yours.
 
Maybe I'm missing somthing here....are there two versions of this bit?
 
 
I need to be clear on this. Are you saying that the/one of the foundations of your faith in the Bible is its apparent ability to foretell the future ?
 
 
I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone who has had a chair fail on them to be a bit sceptical about it's future holding abilities
 
 
Why ?...the opposite is equally plausible
 
 
None whatsoever.....I never come across anything that suggests it would
 
 
Cheers
Spud

Spud,,,
 
I tired to send you a personal invite to the corr Theme tourney, but you are one of the members here that the mail just does not go through.
 
please consider yourself personally invited, mon amis!
 
Snoop

No worries Snoop....Im raring to go . I managed to work out(I hope!!!) the answers to most of the questions I had...If I get stuck Ill be touch before the Tourney
Spud

 
 
Cool.
 
I'll add you in there when you make it "official".

Hi Hmmm
 
Why I take the time to respond I'm not sure.
 
You've stated clearly that you choose not to discuss such things with me, but then you respond to my posts.
 
Confusing.
 
Perhaps it's the case that you want to "straighten" me out without having the gumpsion within yourself to challenge what you know through a careful examination of God's Holy Word?
 
 
I've clearly stated before that I follow God's Word exactly as it is written. Thus if it says God's breath was breathed in I believe that it was God's breath.
 
QUESTION:
If man became a "living soul" after God's breath was breathed into Him what was man before God's breath was breathed into him?
 
ANSWER:
A "non-living soul"
 
QUESTION:
What do you make of these following verses as it relates to the words "living soul"?
 
Ezekiel 18:4 (NIV)
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
 
1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
 
Revelation 16:3 (KJV)
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
 
Happy Sabbath
IBIJ

 
Yes, you did state that. Does the fact that you don't accept the Bible as a credible source thus entirely nullify its crebibility for everyone or rather would this be more of a personal individualistic nullification that we are witnessing?
 
 
There are many many many things that people say about the Bible for which the Bible clearly does not say. What you are witnessing in the conversation between Hmmm and myself is the difference between what people say about God's Word as compared to what God's Word say for itself. Thus the inclusion of words for which you pointed out from Hmmm's response.
 
 
2 Peter 1:21
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
 
Or to answer your question more precisely. When a person can look at historical documentation and find that it lines up exactly as prophecy states the amount of credibility which results is enormous. Given this it is quite possible to look into the future of a matter as outlined through the self same manuscript to see what is yet to come upon humanity and the earth.
 
 
Most certainly, but would it then be reasonable for that same person to examine each and every object upon which they place their back side before sitting down or would that seem just a tad neuratic?
 
Happy Sabbath
IBIJ

Hi IBIJ
 
 
Neither....it's not an either/or proposition.
 
Other people are perfectly free to trust whatever source they want... "nullification" implys that something has such a standing as credible source which can be subsequenty rejected. I don't consider that it does it have such a standing.
 
 
 
I may well regret this... but please provide some example that demonstrate this contention.

 
 
 
Not really...it would depend on how badly they were traumatised the origional chair-failure
 
Spud

 
 
 
 
Ahhhhhhhh,,,, yup! You will.
 
But don't give up, Spud!
Remember,, Nostrdamus did the same thing himself.
 

Many people say many things that end up coming true. Nostradomious is indeed among them, though even his accuracy is not 100% compared to the accuracy of Biblical prophecy.
 
With that said I refer you to Daniel 2. One of my own favorite prophecices that was, is, and will be in the process of being fulfilled.
 
NOTE: Skip down to "prophecy unfolded by historical documentation" if you want to skip over the Scriptures that need to be identified to answer your question.
 
The dream of king Neb...
 
31 "You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
 
The interpretation of the dream...
 
36 "This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.
 
39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
 
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
 
PROPHECY UNFOLDED BY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION
 
King neb = "You are that head of gold."
 
If you study history you will find that the main currency for Babylon (King Neb's domain) was indeed gold.
 
Darius = "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours."
 
This is actually an interesting take over as is the fact that each subsequent kingdom being created upon a weaker foundation until fully restored within the Kingdom of God on earhth.
 
Greece = "a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth."
 
Check out the historical battle equiment used by Greece. You fill find it to be bronze.
 
Rome = "Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others."
 
It doesn't take much study of Rome to find that they were a violent agressive force. They were also the first kingdom with two forms of leadership.
 
* Government
* Religious
 
Today: "As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle."
 
What happened after Rome fell? There is much to look at here, but I will leave it with the fact that 10 kingdoms resulted. However iron is still within this time period. How influencial is the Catholical church in our world today?
 
Future: "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."
 
This talks about the kingdom of God yet to come.
 
Cheers
IBIJ
 
PS: There is so much left unsaid within this conversation. However, given the length of the post already I'm going to stop here for now.
 

Hi IBLJ
 
I apologise for the length of time it has took me to respond to your post.
 
I started a number of times but gave up, often thinking that "this is like trying discuss the colour green with someone who has been blind from birth" but it's only good manners that I should at least give it a try.
 
I mentioned in an earlier post that, like you, I sometimes find the words of others better express my postion than I could myself.
 
So here goes.....
 
Adversaries of Piety and Proof
Peter Slezak | November 19, 2008
 
PERHAPS the clearest symptom of the incompatibility of religion and science is the repeated effort to prove otherwise. Recently in Australia, John Lennox of Oxford University suggested that it was too simplistic to see a conflict between science and religion since "there are brilliant scientists who believe in God".
 
However, it is a poor substitute for argument and evidence to cite the
people who hold certain views. Arthur Koestler once listed all the Nobel
Prize winners and fellows of the Royal Society who believed in extrasensory perception, but if there were persuasive grounds, it would be unnecessary to cite the credentials of eminent believers.
 
From the fact that brilliant scientists believe in God, Lennox infers that there are alternative world views and, therefore, a choice between two metaphysical options: naturalism and theism.
 
The air of profundity in such pronouncements produces a vacant illusion of explanation but disguises sophistry. Indeed, the leading Christian
philosopher Alvin Plantinga suggests that the question of the clash between faith and reason is enormously difficult,requiring "penetrating grasp of the relevant theological and philosophical issues" as well as the complex science.
 
However, this is sheer bluff, since the arguments don't depend on any such arcane knowledge.
 
Lennox says it is a mistake to apply scientific principles to questions of metaphysics and he asserts "there are essentially two options": the mindless matter of naturalism, or else "there is a creator". However, even if we are to talk this way, it remains obscure why the Christian theistic metaphysics is the only alternative to naturalism. One could presumably find or invent many others that would have equal status as alternatives to naturalism, having nothing to recommend them.
 
The very idea that we have a choice among metaphysics is an illusion. There is no alternative to our best theories other than worse ones. Naturalism is just the picture provided by our current science and is, therefore, the best we've got. Fancy philosophical talk of metaphysical options can't change the fact that naturalism is the only game in town, since it is simply the totality of our theories in physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, geology and so on.
 
Does Christian theism provide a better account of quantum physics, cosmology or the structure of DNA? These theories constitute our best understanding of the phenomena in each domain. Naturalism is just shorthand for the overall picture theypresent.
 
Accordingly, it is empty rhetoric to talk as Lennox does of a theistic
alternative on the grounds that the universe is not a closed system "but a creation, initiated and maintained by God". This is hardly an alternative metaphysics compatible with science, since it is a substantive claim about the nature of the universe and the causal influence of a purported being.
 
At best, it is unsupported by evidence. At worst, such claims are
incompatible with our physics of big-bang cosmology, which rules out causes and times before the existence of the universe.
 
There simply is no rational alternative to our best scientific theories
until they are superseded. It is a seductive but meaningless metaphor to
talk of "outside" the universe or a form of inquiry that might transcend our limited science.
 
To pretend that we have a meaningful choice between our best current science and some metaphysical alternative is philosophical bluff that seeks to dignify doctrines that have no rational warrant.
 
Of course, Lennox is not alone, and his arguments have been proposed by
leading Christian philosophers. However, their sophisticated writings serve as a smokescreen for the most egregious claims. For example, Peter van Inwagen defends his preference for Christian doctrines because he has an "incommunicable insight". I confess to having had a few incommunicable insights: as a student, smoking illicit substances. And, of course, psychiatric wards are full of people who profess unshakeable incommunicable insights.
 
Christians also appeal to the facts of history portrayed in the biblical
gospels to warrant their beliefs. We may, for the sake of argument, even
concede the official story of the canonical scriptures, despite
uncertainties in the history of early Christianity revealed by the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Gnostic documents. But granting the facts portrayed in the gospels is not yet to concede the Christian explanation in terms of miracles. Long before the sensation of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, there has been a tradition of alternative, non-miraculous explanations of the evidence. Indeed, any explanation of the gospel story that is consistent with our scientific laws is more plausible and to be preferred over the official, miraculous accounts.
 
As one might expect, historians of early Christianity such as Geza Vermes, Robert Eisenman and Elaine Pagels insist on distinguishing the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. However, Christian philosophers are unwilling to make this obvious distinction. Amid the fancy philosophical footwork, it is not difficult to discern the question-begging reliance on the very doctrines at stake. Plantinga asks the relevant question: in approaching the evidence, is it legitimate for a Christian scripture scholar to employ assumptions or beliefs that are based on his Christian faith? That is, can you assume in advance what you are trying to prove?
 
Astonishingly, Lennox's Oxford colleague Richard Swinburne, fellow of the British Academy and professor of the philosophy of the Christian religion, says that if New Testament scholars inquire into their subject matter without introducing any theological claims, "I can only regard this as a sign of deep irrationality". Plantinga, too, answers his own question by saying it would be "merely perverse" for a Christian scholar not to bring his conviction that Jesus was divine to his scholarship "if what you want, in scholarship, is to reach the truth".
 
He says when we approach the Bible and other texts, it is only common sense that the Christian philosopher should bring Christian convictions to bear on the study. However, these answers characterise any delusional or self-certifying belief, while pretending that it is the objectivity of disinterested inquiry that is outrageous or preposterous and theological tomfoolery.
 
Plantinga gives elaborate arguments for a "new epistemology", but this is just philosophical code for belief without evidence.
 
These philosophers confirm the obvious: contrary to the usual apologetic
propaganda, the gospels only support Christianity if you already believe it. If that's the best philosophers can offer, it's hard to see how Christian theism could provide a supposedly metaphysical alternative to the naturalism of our best science.
 
Particularly disturbing is the rhetoric reversing common-sense standards of objective inquiry. However, we should have confidence in the norms of ordinary rational thought, and we may follow Einstein, who described even the most esoteric science as just common sense writ large. Galileo, too, wrote his famous dialogue on the Copernican world view in the Italian vernacular rather than the scholars' Latin because the ordinary folk would appreciate the force of his arguments better than the learned philosophers steeped in scholastic doctrines.
 
Ultimately, more important than private religious belief is the danger of applying the Christian philosophers' model of rational inquiry outside the sphere of theology. It is not difficult to think of examples in political and social life where we see the pernicious effects of ignoring available evidence and assuming what is supposed to beproved.
 
(Peter Slezak teaches in the school of history and philosophy at the
University of NSW.)
 

Hi Spud
 
Would that make you an agnostic? Willing to accept that there is a God but not knowing who He might be?
 
Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 
Since I come from the view point that the Bible is the Word of God the substance of any spiritually related debate would obviously center around the Word of God as my source.
 
2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
 
I may fail in my pursuit, but I will indeed pursue to the best of my ability.
 
 
I and the Bible disagree with you and them.
 
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
Man is of the dust. When He was formed He was a dead soul. When God breathed into man the breath of life man became a LIVING SOUL. The soul is not something inside man, but rather man is a soul.
 
* Man starts out as a dead soul without God's breath.
* Man then receives God's breath and becomes a living soul.
* When man dies they lose God's breath and return to the state of being a dead soul.
 
There is so much evidance for this within God's Word that it isn't funny. If you like we can continue down this trail. The choice is yours. Why Christians want to hide like silly ostriches with their head in the sand from these truths is beyond me, I'll have no part of it.
 
 
Let's except your premise and ask a question.
 
If God exists and you choose not to follow Him as Scripture calls all who will but believe to do, what have you lost in the end? What have you gained by not doing so?
 
I agree that it would be amazing that all of us are here if God does not exist. What order. What precision. What marvels. By chance? Even a true scientist would have to agree that the possibilities of that would be astronomically implausible.
 
Cheers
IBIJ
 
 
 
 
 

Hi GP13
 
At this point the bottom line is which source do you want to believe?
 
OPTION A:
Webster with his definitions of body and/or soul.
 
OPTION B:
Or God's Holy Word which clearly says...
 
Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
 
Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
 
Genesis 7:22
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
 
Acts 17:25
And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 
If you opt for option A there is nothing more to talk about as I am not claiming to be a Websterite. If you opt for option B then you are contending with what Gods Word says, not me. Either way, as for me and my house we will continue to serve the Lord.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

 
 

Hi GP13
 
Fair enough, and since you brought the point up, could you tell me how...
 
Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
Genesis 2:7 (NIV)
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
 
Says anything different than
1. God formed man from the dust
2. God breathed the breath of life into man
3. Man became a living soul or living being
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Hi Windmill
 
1 Corinthians 15
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
 
John 5:28
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
 
1 Corinthians 15:52
in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
 
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
 
Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
 
Cheers
IBIJ