Human souls MUST be immortal?

[FredBloggs]

Fair enough. Do you know what the subject of the Church’s assertion of the inerrancy of Scripture is?

… it’s the narrative as written down . That being the case, your complaints seem to be irrelevant.

Oh - so you’re saying that *because it’s written down" it’s therefore accurate? And the fact that until they were written down, they propagated only through oral retellings, has no bearing? That at that point they were written down, hundreds or thousands of years after the events they portray, they were (miraculously) accurate?

Or am I misunderstanding you? (if I am, it’s a genuine misunderstanding)

The Word of God is asserted as being inerrant not because it’s a verbatim copy of the first oral telling of the story, but because the written narrative is. If you want to argue a different assertion, then perhaps you’re correct – it doesn’t make sense for you to argue apples if the Church is asserting oranges.

I think I’m arguing that you can’t simply assert inerrancy and have it take seriously. Particularly when no credible explanation exists of how the “facts” survived intact for so long before finally being written down.

I hope you recognize that this is not what I’m asserting.

I’m struggling to see why you (appear to) believe in the inerrancy of Catholic scripture, but (I assume) you would do no such favours to other religious works, or indeed any (purported) nonfiction works that had undergone such a long period of time between event and documentation. I’m struggling to see what’s different about Catholic scripture - why it’s not held to the same standard that other testimony is.

That’s a nice story that you’re telling yourself – and if it helps your particular biological imperative , then please, by all means, continue to do so. However, the “sweet irony” here is that, in the context of your assertions of objectivity and justification… you’ve just added your own subjective justification for disbelief!

Now you’re just arguing a straw man, and throwing in an ad hominem into the bargain.

Your argument is nothing more than special pleading, as far as I can tell. You’ve given no credible reason why scripture should be considered an accurate portrayal of events.

I’ve referred to objective, consistent, corroborating evidence when presenting my points. You’ve merely asserted the truth of your holy book - in contravention of real evidence.

In the absence of honest debate on your part, there’s nothing to be gained from continuing.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh - so you’re saying that *because it’s written down" it’s therefore accurate?

Because it’s Scripture, we believe that it communicates what God wishes to have been communicated.

Is it written in the style of “The 7 o’clock News with Walter Cronkite”? No, of course not – that’d be silly to assert. However, we believe that it tells truths.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, you are.

More to the point, you’re ascribing a complete lack of historical detail, which itself is unprovable. So, if you wish to disbelieve the Scriptures, that’s your business. To assert – baldly, and without attribution – their falsity… well, that’s another matter, and it reflects poorly on you and your claim to want to “honestly debate”.

I think I’m arguing that you can’t simply assert inerrancy and have it take seriously.

Again, you’re misunderstanding what “inerrancy” means in this context. But, that’s understandable, since you’re not a believer and therefore, from your viewpoint, “inerrancy” must only mean “100% historicity”.

I’m struggling to see why you (appear to) believe in the inerrancy of Catholic scripture, but (I assume) you would do no such favours to other religious works

Because we ascribe that inerrancy to God, and He didn’t inspire those other works. Not seeing how that’s difficult to understand.

I’m struggling to see what’s different about Catholic scripture - why it’s not held to the same standard that other testimony is.

Because we hold that its divine author inspired it.

Now you’re just arguing a straw man, and throwing in an ad hominem into the bargain.

I’d suggest you read up on what those terms mean; I’ve done neither. (And the ‘ad hominem’ is especially funny, since I haven’t said “you’re wrong because you’re FredBoggs”.
Merely asserting “FredBoggs, you’re wrong” is not an ‘ad hominem attack’.)

Your argument is nothing more than special pleading, as far as I can tell.

sigh … Yet another opportunity for you to read up on what the terms you’re throwing around, actually mean. “Special pleading” is only “special” when there’s nothing actually “special” about the case in question. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and gently suggest that you consider the notion that a collection of Scripture asserted to be divinely inspired is, in fact, a “special case”, and therefore, does not rise to the level of “special pleading.”

You’ve merely asserted the truth of your holy book - in contravention of real evidence.

This is fun. What, pray tell, would be the kind of ‘evidence’ you would accept to demonstrate divine inspiration? (Keep in mind, please, that if your standard is – a priori – impossible to attain, then all you’ve done is argue in bad faith.)

 

[STT]

These are not really arguments.

 

[MJDorry]

Imago Dei.

This. This is the shortest and most theologically direct answer to the question. More broadly speaking, to use philosophical terminology, the immortality of the soul seems at least to be granted as part of our participation in consciousness, or more specifically “self”-ness/“I”-ness, which is otherwise the sole province of God. It seems to me, at least, that insofar as Consciousness validates and moves existence in a primary way, such that all objects are contingent upon its action, this experience of “self”-ness/“I”-ness thus supposes incontingency, or immortality

 

[steve-b]

These are not really arguments.

Sure they are.

Since we are both just one heartbeat away from eternity, are you feeling comfortable with that bet?

 

[englands123]

The Soul is 100% immortal.

Now some believe like me …

Three
Body , Spirit , Soul.

Some believe …

Body , spirit/soul.

Some believe…

Body/Spirit , soul.

Which ever way you devide the three.

The Soul belongs to God and is eternal.

 

[Pattylt]

the immortality of the soul seems at least to be granted as part of our participation in consciousness, or more specifically “self”-ness/“I”-ness, which is otherwise the sole province of God.

What about cases where due to Alzheimer’s or the like where the self isn’t really the self anymore…or is just dependent on consciousness regardless of self or I ?

 

[FredBloggs]

Because it’s Scripture, we believe that it communicates what God wishes to have been communicated.

Is it written in the style of “The 7 o’clock News with Walter Cronkite”? No, of course not – that’d be silly to assert. However, we believe that it tells truths.

That’s fine. I’m not trying to tell you what to believe or not believe, of course. But your very first sentence is the very definition of “begging the question.”

Given what we know about the roots and heritage of the bible, the likelihood is it’s a set of sensationalised fairy stories.

You have no good reason not to ascribe the same veracity, including accuracy in fine detail, to every other religious book in the world. That cognitive dissonance must burn.

Yes, you are.

More to the point, you’re ascribing a complete lack of historical detail, which itself is unprovable. So, if you wish to disbelieve the Scriptures, that’s your business. To assert – baldly, and without attribution – their falsity… well, that’s another matter, and it reflects poorly on you and your claim to want to “honestly debate”.

And you’re putting words in my mouth, I can only guess why. I have not, at any point, asserted the falsity of the scriptures.

Again, you’re misunderstanding what “inerrancy” means in this context. But, that’s understandable, since you’re not a believer and therefore, from your viewpoint, “inerrancy” must only mean “100% historicity”.

No, I take it to mean (in this context) “accuracy about the events it portrays.” Which probability, absent your “because it’s scripture, it must be accurate” special pleading, and acknowledging how the stories were propagated for thousands of years, and taking into account what we know about how stories are embellished in the telling, is infinitesimal.

 

[FredBloggs]

Because we ascribe that inerrancy to God, and He didn’t inspire those other works. Not seeing how that’s difficult to understand.

Really? It’s true because it’s the God you happen to believe in, and not the ones you happen not to? You don’t see how logically bereft that point of view is? Who am I kidding, of course you don’t

Because we hold that its divine author inspired it.

Okay, I get it. By which light, the Torah and the Vedas and the Qur’an are also true, I’m sure you’ll admit. Awkward…

I’d suggest you read up on what those terms mean; I’ve done neither. (And the ‘ad hominem’ is especially funny, since I haven’t said “you’re wrong because you’re FredBoggs”.
Merely asserting “FredBoggs, you’re wrong” is not an ‘ad hominem attack’.)

More patronising. If you can’t identify the ad hom, I’d suggest it’s you who need to do some reading up.

sigh … Yet another opportunity for you to read up on what the terms you’re throwing around, actually mean. “Special pleading” is only “special” when there’s nothing actually “special” about the case in question. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and gently suggest that you consider the notion that a collection of Scripture asserted to be divinely inspired is, in fact, a “special case”, and therefore, does not rise to the level of “special pleading.”

Ibid. Remove the rod from your own eye.

This is fun. What, pray tell, would be the kind of ‘evidence’ you would accept to demonstrate divine inspiration? (Keep in mind, please, that if your standard is – a priori – impossible to attain, then all you’ve done is argue in bad faith.)

Ha ha, I’ve been waiting for that. Instead of providing evidence (that you don’t have) you challenge your opponent to say what they need.

But it’s simple. If you want me to believe an absurd truth claim, you must provide convincing evidence. If by “diving inspiration” you mean “inspired by an actual, existing God,” then simply provide the evidence that he exists. I’ll admit I was wrong and hut up, and you’ll get a Nobel Prize. That’ll really rub my nose in it

 

[Gorgias]

But your very first sentence is the very definition of “begging the question.”

It really isn’t. It’s providing a definition of what we mean by “divine inspiration.”

Given what we know about the roots and heritage of the bible, the likelihood is it’s a set of sensationalised fairy stories.

We’re still talking past each other.

On one hand, we can talk about “historical accuracy.” In that discussion, we’d talk about oral tradition, the role of the storyteller in illiterate cultures, and the accuracy of passing down cultural history through means other than writing. You’ve already asserted that researchers point out some limitations of oral traditions; I’ve countered that researchers point out that literate societies’ abilities to pass on information through oral means has atrophied, with respect to our earlier, illiterate ancestors.

On the other hand, we could talk about what the Bible does do. I’d point out that there are a variety of genres in the Bible, and not all are meant to be historical narratives. (Some are, of course.) For all the genres, though, I’d assert that Christians believe that God tells truth through Scripture via the inspiration of the Scriptural writer: this means that, when he writes it down, Christians believe that he’s inspired to tell the truth that God wishes to communicate. (Is that truth a historical truth? Sometimes. But always, there’s a theological truth in the narrative.) You’d retort that the narratives are “fairy tales.”

See what I mean? To-may-to, to-mah-to.

That cognitive dissonance must burn.

The lack isn’t “cognitive dissonance” on my part; it’s reading comprehension on your part, it appears. We’re saying different things here.

I have not, at any point, asserted the falsity of the scriptures.

Really? In this very post, you call them “fairy stories.” In addition:

I’m struggling to see why you (appear to) believe in the inerrancy of Catholic scripture

You’ve merely asserted the truth of your holy book - in contravention of real evidence.

I said that based on everything we know about oral testimony, the chances that it survived thousands of iterations of story-telling completely intact are incredibly slim. For any other story, I’m sure you’d join me in concluding that the documentation was unreliable.

So: “not inerrant”, “not true”, “unreliable”. I’m gonna say that you’ve done nothing but assert that Scriptures are false narratives.

No, I take [inerrancy] to mean (in this context) “accuracy about the events it portrays.”

Right. That’s what I’m telling you that I recognized you were thinking; and, I’m telling you that this isn’t what Catholics mean when they assert “inerrancy.”

 

[MJDorry]

I wouldn’t say that the self isn’t the self anymore. Selfness is the substance, which is immutable. Rather, in it’s actualization in the material subject, there are accidents that interfere with the material efficacy of the self. Larry with dementia might be forgetful of who he or anybody else is, but the consciousness which once knew itself to be Larry still very much exists. Once the material accident of dementia is removed as an impediment, hypothetically, the Larry we knew before the disease strick returns as he once was.