Resurrection is a false concept

[frangiuliano115]

What surprises me is that no one seems to have a problem with a magical wardrobe, that transports children to a fantasy land with talking beavers & lions, but we start talking about the fantasy of Santa Claus and people lose their minds.

Sorry everyone - but I need to get serious for a moment.

No Problem with the magical wardrobe. Or the talking beavers, or the evil queen or the talking Lion. Especially the talking lion - he’s Jesus for goodness sake!

However, many christians disapprove of Santa because he shows up at the same time Jesus does.

Then the kid grows up and finds out Santa is fake.

Makes one wonder if maybe Jesus isn’t fake too.

This doesn’t mean children should be deprived of the Santa Experience. The problem is that most parents don’t make Jesus MORE important and REAL. But this will lead to other problems which we can’t discuss here.

Okay. The serious moment is over.

Fran

 

[thinkandmull]

Maybe Santa Claus is Elijah

 

[GEddie]

Please explain where the Church teaches the trichotomy of human life.

ISTM that the ‘nonbody’ part of human life is not spirit + soul, but spiritual soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[frangiuliano115]

Please explain where the Church teaches the trichotomy of human life.

ISTM that the ‘nonbody’ part of human life is not spirit + soul, but spiritual soul.

ICXC NIKA

You could check out the CCC no. 365 to 367 but I doubt it’ll be of any real help, as is much of the CCC, in my humble opinion.

Or you could check out catechism books. I’ve been teaching this for years, with illustrations.

Or you could ask somebody who really knows. Maybe a teaching priest at a seminary, maybe you could google it.

I was in a theology class years ago and the teacher kept referring to body and soul. So I specifically asked because I had read about this and he said he’d get back to me. Well, he did and the answer was that we believe in a trichotomy, not a dichotomy.

It really does make more sense, IMO. But that’s besides the point, you should really find out on your own and not trust me.

It’s very biblical. Check out: 1 Thessalonians 5:23 / Hebrews 4:12 / 1 Corinthians 2:10

Fran

 

[CatholicFireman]

I guess I’ll be safe at your place for Christmas then. What time did you say supper was gonna be?

Come on over. I also watch The Yule Log, even though I have a fire place these days.

Speaking of tradition (if I may get off the subject for a second), *It’s The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown *is on tonight.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Maybe this will add a little peace to the back and forth.

 

[robsully]

Don’t you believe that soul is immaterial?

What I believe doesn’t matter. Your lack of evidence does.
Since you have not supplied proof I will assume you cannot. And I am not surprised.
Where your premise falls apart is that you are trying to measure the supernatural by using natural measurements. Somewhat like trying to measure temperature with a yard stick.
If one could measure the supernatural, test it, repeat tests, then it would not be supernatural. The soul by nature is supernatural therefore not beholding to worldly or the laws of nature. This of course is not my beliefs, I have no evidence of any of this.

 

[Bahman]

There have been philosophers since the time of Plato and Aristotle who have thought about and written myriads of books and articles on the relationship of form and matter.

To presume that you could debunk or refute the idea after a simple reading of a Wiki article leaves me speechless, to be honest.

There are numerous brilliant, intellectually astute and rigorous philosophers in every age since Aristotle who have expounded and expanded the basic idea. Perhaps reading some of them with an open mind, not presuming to know what they don’t might help with gaining insight into the matter.

What one need to start a debate is clear understanding of the topic.

The reason not "just any soul could inhabit just any body” is because hylomorphic dualism entails that body and soul make up what essentially is one act of being – NOT two distinct substances commingled.

This theory seems to me that it resolve the problem of life but it doesn’t answer the problem of conception and death. In simple world how soul and body which are one act of being could be separate upon death and how can come together upon conception.

 

[Bahman]

What I believe doesn’t matter. Your lack of evidence does.
Since you have not supplied proof I will assume you cannot. And I am not surprised.
Where your premise falls apart is that you are trying to measure the supernatural by using natural measurements. Somewhat like trying to measure temperature with a yard stick.
If one could measure the supernatural, test it, repeat tests, then it would not be supernatural. The soul by nature is supernatural therefore not beholding to worldly or the laws of nature. This of course is not my beliefs, I have no evidence of any of this.

I don’t need to offer an evidence for existence of soul since I don’t believe in hylomorphic dualism either. I am simply challenging Christian system of belief.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I am glad that you agree that soul does not occupy any room in absence of a body. Soul however occupies room when it is joined to a body. This however is not the problem. The main problems are how God can unite soul and matter to create human in time of conception and resurrection.

I am not arguing that soul should be embodied to exist. Soul exist with or without a body. Soul however is not functional without body. Angels and God does not occupy any room and they could be functional. Human however need soul and mater. The main problem is that a soul after creation belongs to immaterial world where location doesn’t have any meaning. The soul however should be located in order to embodied inside mater. So as you can see there a problem in bringing soul which is not locatable and unite that with mater.

Hi Bahman, as to your first point, I still disagree that an embodied soul occupies space. Just because the matter informed by the soul has space it doesn’t follow that the soul has space. An analogy would be the brain thinking of the concept of an isosceles triangle: while the former has location and occupies space, the thought of an isosceles triangle doesn’t.

As to your second point, I agree that a disembodied soul is not functional, at least not fully. I still don’t think it follows that God could not sustain the soul without matter, much in the same way as God’s thinking about the concept of an isosceles triangle maintains the concept immaterially.

 

[DCNBILL]

What surprises me is that no one seems to have a problem with a magical wardrobe, that transports children to a fantasy land with talking beavers & lions, but we start talking about the fantasy of Santa Claus and people lose their minds.

What surprises me is a random merging of two radically different threads.

 

[truetofaith]

Sorry everyone - but I need to get serious for a moment.

No Problem with the magical wardrobe. Or the talking beavers, or the evil queen or the talking Lion. Especially the talking lion - he’s Jesus for goodness sake!

However, many christians disapprove of Santa because he shows up at the same time Jesus does.

Then the kid grows up and finds out Santa is fake.

Makes one wonder if maybe Jesus isn’t fake too.

This doesn’t mean children should be deprived of the Santa Experience. The problem is that most parents don’t make Jesus MORE important and REAL. But this will lead to other problems which we can’t discuss here.

Okay. The serious moment is over.

Fran

I agree that kids may say what else was a lie about C-mas…Jesus?

Stories with talking animals etc. are not pushed by parents to be real like Santa Claus. They take the kids to stores to sit on his lap & give their list, then on C-mas Eve, put out cookies and go out of their way to keep up the illusion.

 

[truetofaith]

What surprises me is a random merging of two radically different threads.

Just reply to the one that interests you, the most.

 

[DCNBILL]

Just reply to the one that interests you, the most.

Looking back through the thread it was not as random as I had thought, very clever indeed.

 

[DCNBILL]

I don’t need to offer an evidence for existence of soul since I don’t believe in hylomorphic dualism either. I am simply challenging Christian system of belief.

What you do need is to see all of the evidence for Santa Clause that has been presented in this thread and then correlate that to the evidence of an immortal soul and thus the need for resurrection.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Something which is logically impossible is impossible by definition.

This would be an ontological claim.

And yet, you claimed all ontological arguments were false.

Then here you are claiming that a definition will render things logically - and therefore - ontologically impossible.

No, really, where do you stand on this issue? :jrbirdman:

Is a NECESSARY being merely POSSIBLE?
(Think on that a bit.)

Can bachelors be married?

Are not both “logically impossible?”

Hello?

 

[Peter_Plato]

This theory seems to me that it resolve the problem of life but it doesn’t answer the problem of conception and death. In simple world how soul and body which are one act of being could be separate upon death and how can come together upon conception.

This would be what disqualifies you from applying for the position of “God.” You don’t have the faintest clue how God might go about the business of creating things or resurrecting them. Fair enough.

But when you move from there to make the spectacularly audacious inference that because YOU don’t understand how, therefore God couldn’t, well, let’s just say your argument loses a bit of its flavour.

Just as an aside, I do think - with CS Lewis - that logically impossible things are nonsensical non-starters so God is not compelled even to attempt the task of accomplishing incoherencies.

However, you haven’t shown that conception or resurrection are “logically impossible.”

What you have shown is that when you begin with a logically incomplete and, therefore, incoherent understanding of a perfectly coherent idea such as hylomorphism, then you tie yourself into knots trying to refute it - like a kitten playing with a ball of string theory.

Give a slug Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and the slug will say, “Impossible! Utterly incoherent!” (Well, in its own sluggish way.)

Yes, the slug will find understanding the theory “impossible” and totally incoherent to it. That, however, tells you more about the slug than it does about Einstein’s theory.

But that doesn’t mean Einstein has been proven wrong, or his theory “logically impossible,” does it?

 

[rinnie]

This would be what disqualifies you from applying for the position of “God.” You don’t have the faintest clue how God might go about the business of creating things or resurrecting them. Fair enough.

But when you move from there to make the spectacularly audacious inference that because YOU don’t understand how, therefore God couldn’t, well, let’s just say your argument loses a bit of its flavour.

Just as an aside, I do think - with CS Lewis - that logically impossible things are nonsensical non-starters so God is not compelled even to attempt the task of accomplishing incoherencies.

However, you haven’t shown that conception or resurrection are “logically impossible.”

What you have shown is that when you begin with a logically incomplete and, therefore, incoherent understanding of a perfectly coherent idea such as hylomorphism, then you tie yourself into knots trying to refute it - like a kitten playing with a ball of string theory.

Give a slug Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and the slug will say, “Impossible! Utterly incoherent!” (Well, in its own sluggish way.)

Yes, the slug will find understanding the theory “impossible” and totally incoherent to it. That, however, tells you more about the slug than it does about Einstein’s theory.

But that doesn’t mean Einstein has been proven wrong, or his theory “logically impossible,” does it?

exactly!! Although thousands have testified and sworn that Christ was resurrected from the dead, that is not enough for this person to accept. But even people who testified to the truth, could never give a clear answer or claim understanding of how it was done.

So you have those whose eyes have seen to prove something that is impossible even them to explain, they indeed believe.

But as Jesus said to many of them, you only believe because your eyes have seen for themselves. But blessed are those who believe and have not seen.

Our proof on the resurrection is the thousands who have testified. We take this as proof. Humans who have seen with their own eyes. The burden of proof is for this person to prove that all that have testified to the absolute truth are liars. And the burden of proof is not on our Lord, he proved his case, by resurrecting from the dead.

The burden of proof is those who refuse to accept truth. And with that there is nothing we as humans can do. It can only be given to them by the Grace of God, if God chooses to reveal it to them. But you also have to want truth to be able to accept truth.

As Jesus told the rich man when he wanted to go back from the dead and at least warn his brothers, If the Prophets of God could not convince them, what makes you feel you are any better.

So my answer here is this, We believe because the Prophet of God have taught us, and continue to teach us by the help of the Holy Spirit. If they cannot teach this person, we sure cannot.

 

[truetofaith]

exactly!! Although thousands have testified and sworn that Christ was resurrected from the dead, that is not enough for this person to accept. But even people who testified to the truth, could never give a clear answer or claim understanding of how it was done.

So you have those whose eyes have seen to prove something that is impossible even them to explain, they indeed believe.

But as Jesus said to many of them, you only believe because your eyes have seen for themselves. But blessed are those who believe and have not seen.

Our proof on the resurrection is the thousands who have testified. We take this as proof. Humans who have seen with their own eyes. The burden of proof is for this person to prove that all that have testified to the absolute truth are liars. And the burden of proof is not on our Lord, he proved his case, by resurrecting from the dead.

The burden of proof is those who refuse to accept truth. And with that there is nothing we as humans can do. It can only be given to them by the Grace of God, if God chooses to reveal it to them. But you also have to want truth to be able to accept truth.

As Jesus told the rich man when he wanted to go back from the dead and at least warn his brothers, If the Prophets of God could not convince them, what makes you feel you are any better.

So my answer here is this, We believe because the Prophet of God have taught us, and continue to teach us by the help of the Holy Spirit. If they cannot teach this person, we sure cannot.

Not only did the apostles believe in the miracles of Jesus, but so did His enemies…they said “this man heals the sick & raises the dead.” What must we do with Him?

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t need to offer an evidence for existence of soul since I don’t believe in hylomorphic dualism either. I am simply challenging Christian system of belief.

Here’s the Christian System of Belief:

We believe in the bible.
We believe it’s God revealing Himself to us.
We believe Jesus was born.
We believe He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
We believe He died for our sin and for our sins.
We believe He was resurrected.
We believe the Apostles, and others, saw Him alive again.
We believe this is what gave them the courage to preach, as He had requested.
We believe that He went to prepare a place for us, as He promised.
We bellieve He never broke a promise.
We believe Jesus!

You have a big challenge Bahman.

Fran