Discussion:
Some Universal Questions
(too old to reply)
leojerush
2007-05-10 00:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Respected Sirs,
Religions are from Beliefs; all the Religions teach about an 'after-
life' to man. If 'after-life' was given to a man, (1) "what in him"
gets the 'after-life'? If 'the soul of an individual' is the one that
gets 'the after-life', then (2) "on what basis" the soul was given to
an individual? And (3) "in what form" it was given to an individual?
Does anybody have any idea about these?
Yours,
T. Sekharan.
l***@hotmail.com
2007-05-11 04:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by leojerush
Respected Sirs,
Religions are from Beliefs; all the Religions teach about an 'after-
life' to man. If 'after-life' was given to a man, (1) "what in him"
gets the 'after-life'? If 'the soul of an individual' is the one that
gets 'the after-life', then (2) "on what basis" the soul was given to
an individual? And (3) "in what form" it was given to an individual?
Does anybody have any idea about these?
Yours,
T. Sekharan.
Interesting questions of which books have been written about, so
do pardon us if our replies are general.
Post by leojerush
From the biblical perspective, man was created eternal. He will
never cease to exist. At physical death, his soul does not "sleep"
nor does it cease to exist, nor does it lose consciousness. The
distinction comes between the one who has been "born again
from above" and the one who has rejected the gospel of Jesus
Christ's vicarious atoning death.

Question #2 deals with propagation. There are two leading views
on this question. The first is known as "creationism" which holds
that at some moment God created all the souls of every human
that will ever exists. These souls are kept in some sort of holding
pen until such time a physical birth occurs and at that time a
union takes place.

The second opinion is known as "traducianism." It is founded
upon the statement in Gen 2:7 which reads:

The LORD God formed [the body of] man out of the dust of
the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man
became a living being [soul].

Now it is interesting to note that in the Hebrew, "breath of life" is
actually, "breath of lives," plural. Traducianism teaches that just
as it is in the man to not only procreate physically, but it is
equally
in him to procreate the immaterial aspect, i.e. the soul. This is
why the scriptures teach the federal nature of Adam, the first
created human being. It is from his loins that all humanity flows,
both immaterially as well as materially. This view best explains
why the Messiah had to be born of a virgin therefore not having a
direct link to Adam who could only procreate after "his own
likeness, according to his image" (Gen 5:3). Adam was warned
that in the day that he rebelled against the one commandment,
the sole tenet of testing, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, that in that "day you shall surely
die. Upon that act sole act of rebellion, Adam not only inaugurated
physically death, but even prior to that, died spiritually. Spiritual
death is nothing less than alienation from God, thus he was
subsequently ushered out of the Garden of Eden and no
longer did he enjoy walking with God "in the cool of the night."
And because humanity is a race, once Adam sinned, he entire
race that was residing in his loins, representively "fell" as
well.

This principle federal representation is clearly illustrated in
Gen 14 as taught in Hebrews 7 where it is taught that when
Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek, so too did Aaron and
the priesthood which Aaron represented.

Heb. 7:10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek
met him.

As to Q #3, I'm not quite sure what you are expecting for
an answer. I suppose this is directly linked to what is
discussed in psychology in regards to the "mind." The
soul represents the conscious state of man regardless as
to whether or not he is corporeal or not. I can suggest
reading material that discusses this further if you wish to
review the biblical statements on the subject. Truthfully,
it is really a word study of sorts because the scriptures
use several terms to describe the immaterial nature of
man. Soul, spirit, heart, flesh (as a psychological term,
not a physical determination), mind, and loins, or
intestines or "gut".

Two reference sources for you to investigate, the
first being more general, the second more technical
in nature.

"Systematic Theology" by Lewis Sperry Chafer. It
was originally published as a 7 vol set though now you
can purchase it in 4 volumes. In the 7 vol set, he
begins his discussion on the immaterial makeup of
man in the 2nd vol, page160 and begins his discussion
on the terms mentioned above on p 182. He also
give an overview of the various schools of thought
on the creation of the souls of men and therein refers
to my second resouce...

"Dogmatic Theology" by Shedd. If you purchase
this book, make sure you get the 3rd ed. Just a
superior edition and a hallmark for all subsequent
translated theological works to follow. Shedd's
treatment is by far the most extensive analysis of
soul propagation you will find. His examination
of all the pro's and con's has him lead to a lengthy
discussion of the traducian position. A must read
if you are really interested in researching this aspect
of man.

hope this helps.
B.G. Kent
2007-05-11 04:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by leojerush
Respected Sirs,
B - No respect for Madams? :)
Post by leojerush
Religions are from Beliefs; all the Religions teach about an 'after-
life' to man. If 'after-life' was given to a man, (1) "what in him"
gets the 'after-life'? If 'the soul of an individual' is the one that
gets 'the after-life', then (2) "on what basis" the soul was given to
an individual?
B - on what basis? to experience for God.


And (3) "in what form" it was given to an individual?

B - like the drop of ocean water is to the whole ocean...are we the drops
of God to the whole God. We then chose this "school" to learn in
(many of us but not all)..this
material realm to learn the harshest of lessons...to go through the very
toughest times to concentrate our learning in a quicker way. Why do we
feel we need to learn? because as we experience for God many many of us
stop thinking of ourselves as ONE and start to see ourselves as separate
from God..thereby neccessitating a re-unionizing of our souls via this
dimensional school or other ways.
Post by leojerush
Does anybody have any idea about these?
B - Those are mine. I don't claim them as fact...only what I believe is
Gods teaching to me. As I can't prove them...they remain opinion.
Post by leojerush
Yours,
T. Sekharan.
Bren
b***@juno.com
2007-05-13 23:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
B - like the drop of ocean water is to the whole ocean...are we the drops
of God to the whole God. We then chose this "school" to learn in
(many of us but not all)..this
This is Hinduism, and it is heretical. Christianity has always
maintained that:

1. There is one God.
2. You are not Him.

Bren, when are you going to stop calling yourself a "Christian" and
just admit that you are a Hindu?

The Bible says we will be punished if we set ourselves up as God. God
alone is God. We are not "pieces" of God. If we were, we could accept
worship, and when Satan tempted Jesus, Jesus could have just
worshipped Satan, and it would not have been a big deal.

The entire Bible, from the Old Testament to the New, is a giant
polemic against the idea that we are "pieces" of God. The very idea is
the worst blasphemy, the most vile heresy. We are not "pieces" of God.
Rather, we are "creatures" of God. God is the "Other." Christianity
can be summarized, on one level, by simply saying that "We are not
God, rather we are alienated from Him, and desperately need Him to
save us from ourselves."

In fact, it is so true that we are not God, that God had to manifest
himself by incarnation in Jesus. If we were already "pieces" of God,
then such a radical incarnation would be superfluous at best.
Post by B.G. Kent
material realm to learn the harshest of lessons...to go through the very
toughest times to concentrate our learning in a quicker way. Why do we
feel we need to learn? because as we experience for God many many of us
stop thinking of ourselves as ONE and start to see ourselves as separate
from God..thereby neccessitating a re-unionizing of our souls via this
dimensional school or other ways.
What is this, the Bhagavad-Gita school of Christianity? Who do you
think you are fooling? You are Hindu. Just admit it.
Post by B.G. Kent
B - Those are mine. I don't claim them as fact...only what I believe is
Gods teaching to me. As I can't prove them...they remain opinion.
They are the opinion of the Hindus of India. They have absolutely
nothing to do with Christianity. They are the exact opposite of
everything the Christ tried to teach us.

If we are all "pieces" of God, this means we have good reason to be
prideful, arrogant, and we can demand that other people worship us.
Oddly, that is exactly what the Hindus do, when they greet each other,
they bow and press their hands together in a "prayer" to the "god" in
the other person. This is the most deadly blasphemy, the exact
opposite of Christianity.

Christians bow before God only. We are not to bow to anyone else, be
it an idol or another human. Read the book of Daniel. Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego were wiling to risk death rather than bow to an
idol. Likewise with the early Christian Martyrs, who refused to
sacrifice to Caesar. Don't you realize that the entire history of
Christianity is the exact opposite of what you claim is "Christian?"

Christianity is anti-idol. Always has been. Always will.
Post by B.G. Kent
Bren
Bren, repent now. Your beliefs are blasphemous, even if you mean no
harm by them. Repent and find the true Jesus.

I fear for you, because you might be affecting the beliefs of hundreds
who read this newsgroup, which means God will hold you accountable for
leading them astray.
DKleinecke
2007-05-11 04:18:58 UTC
Permalink
all the Religions teach about an 'after-life' to man.
If atheism and deism are religions, as I and many other people
believe, it is not true that all Religions teach about an after-life.
If 'after-life' was given to a man, (1) "what in him" gets the 'after-life'?
There is bit of circular definition that goes on that this point. If
there is an after-life then we can define whatever is involved in that
after-life as the "soul". But we cannot assume that "soul' has any
meaning except in this sense. That is, there is nothing "in him" that
gets the after-life prior to the belief that there is an after-life.
If 'the soul of an individual' is the one that gets 'the after-life', then (2) "on what basis" the soul was given to an individual?
On the whole, this is a meaningless question in the sense that either
a person has a soul or a person does not have a soul. Whichever way
you choose to go the answer to this question is automatic.
And (3) "in what form" it was given to an individual?
A "soul" is, by definition, a supernatural entity (in the sense of not
being palpable in the physical world). To most of us the supernatural
world is more or less a mystery and no usable meaning can be applied
to the idea of "supernatural form".

In as few words as possible - God Only Knows
l***@hotmail.com
2007-05-13 23:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
all the Religions teach about an 'after-life' to man.
If atheism and deism are religions, as I and many other people
believe, it is not true that all Religions teach about an after-life.
Ah, but Christianity is not fundamentally a religion. Religion,
properly defined, is man seeking to merit favor with God. This
is not the Christian gospel. Christianity has God seeking
after man. This separates it from all other so called, "religions."
Loading...