Seperation of Church & School

[Embar Angylwrath]

Kulaf - you dodged the question. I asked you to explain how those citations fitted in with your notion that the soul ceases to exist if damned. This is kinfd of what Jaro was directing at Dd. When you can't explain, you ignore or redirect. So, I'm just going to asssume that you just ignore conflicts in scripture and laregly just makeit up as you go along. A cafeteria Christian... you choose to take some scripture, and ignore others, especcially when they may conflict with one another. But don't feel bad about it, I think every Christian has to do that because there are contradictions in the Bible.

So basically what I said before about you not reading what I post is 100% accurate, because I already posted what the "second death" is. It is in the book of Revelation 20:13-15

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Unless you have some logical reason why God would pull people out of Hell......then destroy Hell........then toss them back into fire to burn for all eternity when they were already burning for all eternity. Of course here I am using your definition of Hell.

What I asked you to do was address each of the scripture lines and tell me how they fit with your interpretation of a soul ceasing to exist.

You continue the dodge...

[Kulaf]

/sigh

Ok let me add Revelation 21:1-5 and see if I can make this a bit clearer for you:

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Passed away. Dead. Destroyed. Gone. Annihilated. Now do you see what I am talking about? All sin and wickedness is destroyed. Death is destroyed. All that remains is God and those written in the book of Life dwellling with him. Everything else is destroyed, "the old order of things has passed away."

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yuo keep circling back to that one citation. Yet the other citations seem to say something differernt. I'm asking you to explain those citations so that they support your beleif that a soul ceases to exist. I already know which cotation you point to, I want to know how you explain the seeming inconsistancy.

Or are you just ignoring every other citation except the one you keep tossing out there?

[Kulaf]

There is no inconsistancy. Your citations are speaking of the first death. Mine are speaking of the second death. Your top of the list Google search for "Can the soul be destroyed" doesn't even deal with the citations from the Book of Revelation. So if I had a notion that you were actually putting some of your own thought into this, I might be inclined to jump through your hoops, but frankly I don't think you actually care other than to try to manipulate the topic.

[Embar Angylwrath]

How do you reconcile statments that the "first death" as you see it, says the soul will live forever. I don't see anything in those citations that mention something like the soul will live forver, sorta maybe, until we kill it again. Your itnerpreation of the "second death" is inconsistant with other citations, and you won't address it.

[Kulaf]

Ok let's approach this logically from a chronological perspective. If we state as a given that we at one point went from "An eye, for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" and one accepts that these two statements are not in conflict, than one can do the same with the Revelation. The Soul is eternal......until God wills it otherwise. Since the Book of Revelation is the last recorded prophesy dealing with the end of human existance in this form and the assention to another......it supercedes all previous works. Therefore all of your citations relating to the state of the soul prior to its restatement in the Book of Revelation are moot.

Simple as that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok let's approach this logically from a chronological perspective. If we state as a given that we at one point went from "An eye, for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" and one accepts that these two statements are not in conflict, than one can do the same with the Revelation. The Soul is eternal......until God wills it otherwise. Since the Book of Revelation is the last recorded prophesy dealing with the end of human existance in this form and the assention to another......it supercedes all previous works. Therefore all of your citations relating to the state of the soul prior to its restatement in the Book of Revelation are moot.

Simple as that.

Last recorded prohecy? That's daft. Yes, its the youngest book in the Neew Testament, but its separated by only about 50 years from the oldest book in the New Testament. God change his mind that much in 50 years? I thought his will was eternal? Constant. One unyeilding truth. And Revelation is written like someone was taking acid. peyote and smoking hash all at the same time. It's the least literal book in the New Testament, and you're using the least literal book in the New Testament as the basis for your beleif that a soul ceases to exist. You beleive literally in the seven headed red dragon, the lamb with 7 hors, the weird lepordard and horned beast and some beast that crawls from the earth looking tlilke the lamb but speaking like the dragon? That was foretold in Revelation too.

[Kulaf]

It is not a question of when the prophesy was recorded.....but when it will transpire.....whichi is thousands (or more who knows) of years after the other books. You asked for a response.....and I gave you a very logical reasoned response. Mind, you are asking me to defend a position I do not believe in since I do not believe in a literal "Hell" and therefore it matters not a whit to me whether souls are burning in a place I don't believe in. So if you want an answer that better fits your current religious schism......seek it elsewhere.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What sort of bilical reference are you citing when you say what transpires in revelation will be after what trnaspires in other books?

Also, please quit dodging questions. Do you literally beleive in the Revelation description of the 7 headed, ten horned red dragon (and all the other weird shit in there)?

Also, you never responded to my question if you beleive that Genesis was a literal account of history. (Because you used the interaction between Eve and Satan as an example for your argument of free will). Did that interaction ever literally occur? Was there an actual apple? Did god literally rip a rib from Adam and create a female of our species?

[Kulaf]

All events that are recorded in the Bible that are outside of the writers direct experience are revelations and are recorded to the best of the writers ability given there limited knowledge of what is revealed to them. Do I believe in "original sin"? Yes. Do I believe that some books of the bible teach lessons through allegory? Absolutely.

[Embar Angylwrath]

All events that are recorded in the Bible that are outside of the writers direct experience are revelations and are recorded to the best of the writers ability given there limited knowledge of what is revealed to them. Do I believe in "original sin"? Yes. Do I believe that some books of the bible teach lessons through allegory? Absolutely.

Dodge.

Yes or no.... do you beleive literally in the 7 headed, 10 horned dragon? Will such a beast appear at the end of times? If I took a picture of the beast, would it generally look like a seven-headed ten-horned red dragon?

Yes or no... Was there an actual Eve?

Yes or no... was that Eve really created from the removal of a rib from Adam (if so, which rib?)

Yes or no... did that Eve have a conversation with the Devil?

Yes or no... was there a litteral "Tree of KNowledge" that actually grew apples?

Edit: And by your last post, you imply Revelation is highly interpretative, since just about everything in that book was outside the author's direct knowledge. So why do you lend more weight to a highly interpretive book? Becuase lets be honest about this... the only biblical citation you can find to support your supposition that souls cease to exist after some so-called second death (highly suspect as well), is only found in a book that is highly interpretative.

And this is my point with some Christians.. they choose what they want to take out of scriipture, and ignore the inconsistancies in the rest of it. And then engage in floundering semi-logic that wouldn't make sense to anyone but themselves.

However, I could be wrong on this. We definately have beleivers here. So I'd be interested in hearing their answers to the same questions above.

If you beleive the former.. why apples? Why not grapes? Or tangerines? Or TreeOfKnowledge Fruit?

[Kulaf]

Sorry.....Ii don't play your yes or no game.....this isn't a court of law and I am going to answer questions how I feel and if you don't like it.....tough.

Yes or no.... do you beleive literally in the 7 headed, 10 horned dragon? Will such a beast appear at the end of times? If I took a picture of the beast, would it generally look like a seven-headed ten-horned red dragon?

How would I know.....I did not receive the revelation. He could be speaking in reference to some creature he saw.....or perhaps in metaphor of nations/people assembled against God. I don't know.....do you? Yes or no?

Yes or no... Was there an actual Eve?

Yes

Yes or no... was that Eve really created from the removal of a rib from Adam (if so, which rib?)

I don't know, you'd have to ask Moses......nor can I comment on whether Adam was created from dust.....just wanted to head that one off before you asked.

Yes or no... did that Eve have a conversation with the Devil?

Eve was tempted and failed......and so did Adam once he knew where the fruit was from. Was there a snake (or devil as you call it)......I have no direct knowledge whether it was or whether it was simply metaphor for temptation.

Yes or no... was there a litteral "Tree of KNowledge" that actually grew apples?

No. The bible simply says that the Tree of Knowledge bore fruit. I don't believe it ever specifies was kind, but if I was to hazard a guess I would say it would be dates as they later used fig leaves to cover themselves. Seems somewhat logical don't you think.

Edit: And by your last post, you imply Revelation is highly interpretative, since just about everything in that book was outside the author's direct knowledge. So why do you lend more weight to a highly interpretive book? Becuase lets be honest about this... the only biblical citation you can find to support your supposition that souls cease to exist after some so-called second death (highly suspect as well), is only found in a book that is highly interpretative.

My citations are not from the part that requires interpretation. It seems quite clear.

And this is my point with some Christians.. they choose what they want to take out of scriipture, and ignore the inconsistancies in the rest of it. And then engage in floundering semi-logic that wouldn't make sense to anyone but themselves.

I agree. But you could put 12 people on a bus and have them roam from city to city for a few years and then have some truely spectacular things happen and they all would right down what happened and you would get 12 different stories because those 12 different people all remember different things. It doesn't mean the things didn't happen, but the perspecitive is different. Instead of focusing on the differences......Christians seek out the common threads. You seem to have lost your way and only want to reinforce the differences which lead you away.....but that is your choice. You do have free will after all.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You wanted to approach this logically. Do I need to point you to your own statements on the matter and logic?

I'm asking you to logically support your supposition that 1) there is a second death, and 2) the second death doesn't conflict with other scripture that there is only one death (judgement).

Why judge a soul twice? Was there a p[ossibility of a mistake in the first judgement.

And you CONTINUALLY dodge my direct yes/no questions.... why? Are you afraid to take a position? Have you not formed a position? Will you not advocate your beleief for the benefit of those of us unshriven? Why keep your wisdom to youself if souls could be saved?

Please, share with us your understanding of god.

[Kulaf]

Simply answered. The first death is the death of the body. The second death is the death of the soul. I would have thought that plainly obvious. And since I don't believe people are judged when their body dies, but rather when the end of days occurs I cannot answer your supposition on why people are judged twice when I don't believe they are.

Did you ever recite The Apostles Creed. Think on the words in that very carefully before you say when people are actually judged.

I have answered your questions. The answer does not require a simple yes/no response. I am sorry you feel otherwise, but that is your issue. Finally I don't believe in proselytizing. I encourage everyone to come to God in their own manner and understanding.