What is a Soul Worth?

[Crucible]

If you listen to a Calvinist a soul is not worth very much.

Where is it written that a soul has so much worth?

Nowhere, that's where- because you all made it up lain:



NEXT

 

[patrick jane]

Luke 15:3-7 KJV -

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I think the soul is highly misunderstood. That is why it has been neglected by the church in favor of something not as difficult as in the literal Jesus. It's been left out of the Trinity yet it is of infinite, eternal and unconditional value. We are one with this infinite, eternal and unconditional value and we are one with God because of the soul. The story of Jesus is a clever allegory to represent and symbolize this oneness with God through the soul.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

What is a Soul Worth?

Hi Townie. We haven't spoken in a while. I've not seen posts from you for some time and I miss the saner side of christianity. I haven't been around much until recently and I understand you have been away as well. It's nice to see you again.You'll get no disagreement from me on this point. A biological imperative? Sure. I have four kids. How's Jack and does he have a sister yet?How is recognizing/acknowledging death defeatist? Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE dies; there are no exceptions. Death isn't the "worst possible outcome of existence", it is the ONLY outcome anyone has ever known. Man's "nature" won't change the reality nor will wishful thinking. It's valueless. Even if I hadn't become an initiate of the experience of God, I suspect that at some point I'd have adopted an intellectual belief, all things being equal in a general sense and faith having more value as a context.[/wuote]Although christians tell me all the time, my life isn't valueless or meaningless. WE give our existence meaning, to say otherwise, from my opinion, is defeatist.You'll get no disagreement from me on this point either. While I agree that it is irrational to fear death, many people, and I think christians are the majority, fear death to an highly irrational degree (you've smart enough to know what I mean).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I know I'm Jumping in, and I won't be able to check this for a bit as it is my last post for a little while, but I've been reading your posts.

I pose a question to you that got posted to Mr. Dawkins and I'll add a tiny bit.

What would you say to God if He meets with you face to face after your death, tells you He loves you, laughs and says that you always were the stubborn one, but He always loved that about you too?


Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Why are christians so afraid of death/dying? Aren't they anxious to enter heaven?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

They aren't. Look up Foxes Book of Martyrs.

It's eye opening.


Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

What is a Soul Worth?

The fact that God's Son died for you means that your soul is of infinite value to God.

To reject God's great free gift of salvation that has been provided for you by the doing and the dying of Jesus is what will bring God's wrath upon you.

Robert,

The Spirit is moving on you heart through Silent Hunter. Your OP is beautiful. You are correct. Please forgive me for interjecting this, but who did God pour all of His wrath upon?

You know this one.

I don't see SH engaging me, but SH wouldn't be here if he wasn't sensitive to the eternity placed in his heart.

He isn't reaching for the answers he appears to be reaching for.

He knows in his soul, like a babe born new, that an eternally loving Father wouldn't torture His disobedient children for eternity.

Do you pursue SH with Love or Fear?




Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Town Heretic]

Oops. Sorry.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's the christian refuses to acknowledge this (that christianity is a construct) doesn't make it any less so, distinction or no.

Well, no. You have to think your morality is a construct, because it is, has to be given your premise. But you can only assert/assume that's true for the Christian, who doesn't operate from that premise.

The testable evidence suggests there is no afterlife.

It doesn't. There's literally no litmus for the proposition.

If you have evidence to test not in consideration beyond "this book I have says so" or "I believe and have faith X is so", or "this philosophical argument proposes" science is waiting.

I've been fairly clear on the failure of empiricism to address the question, let alone solve it. I believe the case is easy to make for the superiority of the position as it addresses fundamental questions of being and imperative, but that's only proof of its utility, not its truth.

Being a victim of what we both agree is a horrible weapon does not negate the value of science.

It could to the individual valuing it.

It calls into question the subjective morality of using such a device but not the value of science and our ability to peacefully use nuclear energy.

Which itself is a subjective judgment.

The scientific method works because it can be objectively shown to produce predictable, reliable, and repeatable results, therefore WE believe, trust, and have "faith" in the value of science.

Science has reliably, predictably and repeatedly been responsible for an enormous amount of suffering. I tend to side with the positive expression, but I recognize you can be skeptical of that without being irrational.

Standards for proving the foundation of faith:

This attempts to shift the burden of proof of which the atheist/agnostic has no burden.

Sorry, but the moment you ask for proof you change the field. At that point I'm free to say, actually have to ask, what standard would suffice?

You have faith in a reality you self-constructed you can't objectively demonstrate. As "someone who stands outside of that faith" it sounds like self-delusion, your mileage may vary.

I have faith in something that you believe but cannot prove is a construct. I've accepted (not constructed, given it existed long before me) that context which I cannot empirically prove and which neither of us can reasonably connect to an empirical approach. So you can describe a thing as a construct or a wish, but you're not being reasonable when you do. What you can say is that you believe it to be. Beyond that you'll need to prove something you can't.

What does justice have to do with the reality of death? Did I read you right? It doesn't follow that "life" is preferable to death therefore an afterlife exists.

No. I was rebutting your claim that death wasn't inherently negative. That was the entirety of the effort on the point.

Quite a few atheists, myself included, would contend oblivion is preferable to the boredom of eternal life servicing an (insert your list of atributes you believe your deity posesses here) "being" who, possessing such attributes, shouldn't even care about you anyway.

So here's what's silly about that, in no particular order. Contending that God (possessing attributes in perfection) would be unable to supply you with an existence superior to your current state, however rewarding that state, isn't particularly rational. We aren't that complicated and certainly not to a God who knows our heart. Attempting to judge a god of perfect attribute from a position of inferiority is equally mistaken. And to assert that God shouldn't care is just goofy, unless you're now speaking to, for, or of a different faith than the Christian one for the same reason judging what he could or couldn't meet in you would be.

I don't know isn't an option?

No. The moment you begin to make moral choices you make moral distinctions as to the context of your life. You become, practically speaking, something other than an agnostic.

I'd rather be wrong for the right reason (sincere and justifiable skepticism) than right for the wrong reason (blind faith, or, as they say in Frostbite Falls, because I'd really, really, really like my belief to be true).

If you're right there is no right reason, only the reason that suits you. And then we're back to arguing what should reasonably, rationally suit you and meet your nature better.

]I'm having difficulty in choosing to have faith something doesn't exist.

Then the problem is in your presumption.

Do you have faith invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

Of course not. No one does because, unlike the actual thing considered, we understand that unicorns are an invention.

I think that "god" is falsifiable. The testable objective evidence suggests there is/are no "god(s)". If you have evidence to test not in consideration beyond "this book I have says so" or "I believe and have faith X is so", or "this philosophical argument proposes", science is waiting.

I've already answered on the point by noting that proof isn't something either of us can fashion a reasonable metric for and absent that you're not really asking me for a thing that can't be supplied. Once you know that, a challenge on the point isn't reasonable. It's rhetorical device.

This sounds like a defense of Pascal's Wager and one of the better I've seen.

I never liked Pascal's notion, which centered on the potential for the next life. I'm speaking to the living of this one. Beyond that is the potential for something more and even that mostly reflects on the living of this one.

The evidence doesn't need to be irrefutable; presenting any objective evidence at all would be a good place to start.

There's all sorts of evidence. But none of it will prove the point and anything short of that can be dismissed.

How does one go about objectively evaluating something that by its very nature is subjective?

You can evaluate the objectively demonstrable impact of the subjective.

No one can evaluate your personal experience. No, I just refuse to validate your religion because, although you take it seriously, I am unable, even to please a friend.

Using the appropriate grammar is only validating the idea that your objection isn't predicated on an antipathy or inherent bias, but the last bit was appreciated.

That doesn't make me unfeeling, just consistent. I put quotes around "god" because, by your own admission, "god" is a subjective experience, personalize the concept as it suits you. Names still qualify as proper. Now, if you were to start capitalizing "atheist", "atheism", "agnostic", and "agnosticism " I might reconsider.

I don't capitalize atheism because it isn't a proper noun.

If "it's no mortal wound or even particularly offensive" to you then let your outrage die.

The same degree of outrage I'd muster if you willfully, intentionally wrote your instead of you're.

Hitler didn't repent? Assuming he was sincere and received absolution, how does justice figure in?

In order...not that I know of, but who knows? And justice figures in the cross. We can talk about what that entails, but absent your specific interest on the point I'll save some finger work.

Manufacturing your own context serves what you believe your deity is and wants.

Again, that wouldn't describe it accurately. Supra and prior.

I works for you and I can't fault your integrity and honesty. It's interesting that you do "good" for goodness sake, a trait atheists do naturally.

I thought I'd answered on that...an atheist serves his notion. A Christian serves his notion. The foundation to that is different and the difference is, I believe, important.

As for accounting for sin, DavisBJ made an interesting comparison, "I got a neighbor. He came up to me and said he doesn’t agree with some things I do. So he gave me a choice. Option 1 is that he is going to beat the living stuffins out of me until I am just a quivering bloody stump. Or I can say I really like his son, and then he is going to have the living beejeebers beat out of his own son. Great logic."

Except the parallel fails in a few important regards. First, it assumes the law isn't an expression of an immutable truth. The second is that in its rush to simplify and degrade it doesn't appear to understand the first thing about what confession and repentance actually are (hint: they aren't saying you really like Jesus).

Then christianity isn't rational. A christian cannot claim to know more than he can prove.

It's irrational to violate your own standard. It isn't inherently irrational to have another standard. Else, it's a semantics problem. Or do you believe you can only know what you can absolutely demonstrate and prove? Understand you're placing a lot of scientific theory and math into a peculiar box if you answer yes.

Pascal's Wager again?

I've never advanced Pascal's Wager. So I can't do a thing again that I've never done. Pascal missed the point by making the entire proposition about the undemonstrable possibility. I've argued for the utility in this life and the impact of belief in the next within this life. The next life is so much gravy. . . mind you, it's a darn good gravy.

And I still appreciate your concern while you enjoy wasting your time doing so.

I think it is only a waste if you're not open to being wrong on the point, which would be a peculiarly irrational posit for an atheist. As peculiar as a theist who wasn't closed on it.

:cheers: