Resurrection is a false concept

[GEddie]

So God must have a body or he, too, would be powerless?

Rocks have bodies but that, in itself, does not make them powerful.

The difference between infinite and finite is well, infinite!

An infinite mind already contains everything and so has no need for a body; finite minds need bodies to hold life and provide experience.

And while in the past and to a limited extent today, any solid object can be called a body; in this context, the term should be specified as the solid or spatial structure that holds the human life and mind.

A rock is a “body” in the sense that it is solid, but hS no power because it holds no life or mind. In that sense, it is like a dead human body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[You]

I think that I was precise enough.

You are claiming a lot. If soul could have a form after death and could live in the spiritual realm then why God bothered to combine mater with soul to create human?

He is a Creator God and a generous one. He has created plants and animals that we will never see, he has created a universe which we can never see. He does everything because he wants to not because he has to. If he had to then he might do the least possible and be efficient but he makes everything generously.
He combined matter and soul in humans because he has a plan for them. They are to become like him. Unlike the purely spiritual angels, humans and God the son share special qualities because of their human experience. Both suffered and came closer to the heart of the Creator God because of that.

 

[robsully]

Hello Bahman; before moving on to your premise " the resurrection is a false concept " please provide the evidence that the “soul”, exists.

 

[jonathan_hili]

My claim is very simple: Soul is immaterial and cannot occupy any room upon death. This is my axiom which seems reasonable.

I am arguing against this picture.

Sure, the soul is immaterial but what is it? I mean, if one argues that God cannot know the soul, one needs to give an account of the soul to make it clear why God cannot know it.

 

[Bahman]

In terms of location, the spiritual immaterial aspect of the human person goes to the particular judgement when death occurs. The temporary location after that is heaven, purgatory, or hell. The form of the body is simply the material aspects of the human person. But what is most essential to the human person, is the spiritual aspect.

These are a set of claims. We need to focus on the argument provided on OP. How soul could be present in court if it cannot be detected.

So the form of body that is given back to the form of the spirit is drastically different from the form that it had during its temporal life in time and space. It is a body suitable to a state of existence beyond time and space.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP.

In any event, the body is simply the conglomeration of matter and cells in a certain shape. Science tells us that we replace all of our skin cells every 8 years. And yet we continue being the same entity that we were 8 years ago. What explains this continuity is not the body but the presence of the person.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP.

So God does not literally have to find the old form of the body somewhere, dust it off, and resurrect it. We are promised a new body in the resurrection. The one thing that maintains continuity between the old body and the new body is the spirit. That part of the human soul that works with universal things and concepts such as treeness, truth, goodness, and God.

There is a time period between death and resurrection that soul does not have any body hence soul cannot be detected if this period exist and resurrection is impossible.

How can something like this continue to exist without a body? The answer to that is by the power of God. That being lives in a drastically incomplete state until the time of the resurrection. We have grounds to believe that the intellectual soul cannot be destroyed based on what the intellect works with. It works with universal and perfect ideas that can in no way be perfectly instantiated in the material world. These universals and perfect ideas do not pass away. They would be true regardless of whether the material world existed. Therefore the human soul must also have this same indestructibility.

Soul to the best of my knowledge from your teaching is immortal hence it could exist after death. The main problem is that how God could located the lonely soul and give the soul a new body.

You may say, I reject all of this. Only matter exists. Ideas only exist in the human brain. Therefore they are not immaterial. Well, in a way, we see God’s creation in this same way. God is the actus purus. Out of his omniscience and power comes creation. Creation comes and is sustained in existence because he conceived it in himself. The material world and our very soul have a counterpart in his mind. How can we exist without a body? Because God wills us to exist. The immaterial spirit is held together by a composite of essence and existence. That existence… that esse is God’s power. We participate in God in this way. We are grounded in God in this way. So everything that exists, whether it be material or immaterial, it localizable in esse.

God bless,
Ut

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP. I never claimed that I am a materialist in this forum.

 

[Bahman]

He is a Creator God and a generous one. He has created plants and animals that we will never see, he has created a universe which we can never see. He does everything because he wants to not because he has to. If he had to then he might do the least possible and be efficient but he makes everything generously.
He combined matter and soul in humans because he has a plan for them. They are to become like him. Unlike the purely spiritual angels, humans and God the son share special qualities because of their human experience. Both suffered and came closer to the heart of the Creator God because of that.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP. These are just a set of claims.

 

[Bahman]

Hello Bahman; before moving on to your premise " the resurrection is a false concept " please provide the evidence that the “soul”, exists.

I am debating with Catholic who believe that soul exist.

 

[Bahman]

Sure, the soul is immaterial but what is it? I mean, if one argues that God cannot know the soul, one needs to give an account of the soul to make it clear why God cannot know it.

Of course God knows what soul is. Soul however cannot occupy any room upon death. So the idea is that how the person could be resurrected when soul cannot be located.

 

[utunumsint]

These are a set of claims. We need to focus on the argument provided on OP. How soul could be present in court if it cannot be detected.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP.

There is a time period between death and resurrection that soul does not have any body hence soul cannot be detected if this period exist and resurrection is impossible.

Soul to the best of my knowledge from your teaching is immortal hence it could exist after death. The main problem is that how God could located the lonely soul and give the soul a new body.

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP. I never claimed that I am a materialist in this forum.

The answer is God’s esse. Everything that exists, exists by participation in esse.

Good luck in your investigations Bahman. Try to keep an open mind.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

. . . how the person could be resurrected when soul cannot be located.

There’s an app for that.

 

[Bahman]

There’s an app for that.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Could you please elaborate?

Soul Tracker 2.0

 

[You]

I don’t understand how this could be related to OP. These are just a set of claims.

Your original post calls up the resurrection. The resurrection is Catholic theology and dogma. If you call up the one then you implicitly accept the other as true. As in you could not say I don’t believe in some magic without implicitly implying that you believe in other magic.
Talking about the resurrection being true or false implies the possibility of either to your mind. I for instance don’t bother arguing against the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Santa Claus because that would imply the possibility that they might be true.

How do you talk about a dogma of catholicism like the resurrection without talking about all catholic dogma and theology surrounding it and supporting it. You cannot.
It is like trying to defend quantum physics but not being allowed to mention physics, that you must only explain quantum physics in agricultural terms or some other ridiculous notion.

Open a thread arguing against the existence of Santa Claus and see peoples comments to you. Like, what are you talking about, what makes you think Santa Claus is real?

 

[You]

Children believe that Santa Claus is a real man. Santa however is an immaterial thing and it is form of persons body. Santa is separated from real body upon death. Santa however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that Santa cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of Santa Claus is false.

 

[Della]

Sorry, your basic premise is wrong, therefore your conclusions are wrong. :tiphat:

St. Nicholas of Smyrna is the basis for “Santa Claus.” Indeed, “santa” means saint, and “claus” is Nicholas as rendered from various European languages.

The idea that he is an elf who lives at the North Pole making toys for children is also derived from the fact that St. Nicholas is the patrion saint of children who paid the dowries of poor girls so they wouldn’t have to live as prostitutes to earn a living. He also saved children’s lives.

Santa Claus as an idea isn’t a bad one if we make sure children know that he represents the joy of Christmas and is not St. Nicholas himself–that SC imbodies some of the saint’s virtues and merits.

There’s a representation of Santa Claus kneeling at the manger worshiping the Christ Child. That is the appropriate way of thinking of him–and of St. Nicholas since the saint definitely points to Christ the one who enabled him to become a saint.

 

[mikekle]

Sorry, your basic premise is wrong, therefore your conclusions are wrong. :tiphat:

St. Nicholas of Smyrna is the basis for “Santa Claus.” Indeed, “santa” means saint, and “claus” is Nicholas as rendered from various European languages.

The idea that he is an elf who lives at the North Pole making toys for children is also derived from the fact that St. Nicholas is the patrion saint of children who paid the dowries of poor girls so they wouldn’t have to live as prostitutes to earn a living. He also saved children’s lives.

Santa Claus as an idea isn’t a bad one if we make sure children know that he represents the joy of Christmas and is not St. Nicholas himself–that SC imbodies some of the saint’s virtues and merits.

There’s a representation of Santa Claus kneeling at the manger worshiping the Christ Child. That is the appropriate way of thinking of him–and of St. Nicholas since the saint definitely points to Christ the one who enabled him to become a saint.

Yes, but in modern times, santa claus really takes away from the REAL reason for the season, I dont think its any big shock that Christmas has become a purely materialistic holiday, as just about everyone ‘celebrates’ christmas…have to ask yourself why would a secular family want to celebrate christmas in the first place? Why are all businesses closed for a religious holiday?

The strangest thing imo, all these retailers and big stores take full advantage of this religious holiday, they LOVE christmas, they go all out for it, stay open 24/7 weeks before, yet when it comes to other religious topics or celebrations, they shy away or dont acknowledge them at all…??

You are right though, the REAL 'santa claus, was indeed a saint who did great things, but has morphed into a truly secular, materialistic entity…do you really think so many young kids would love santa so much if he didnt bring them huge piles of new gifts?

 

[Faith1960]

Children believe that Santa Claus is a real man. Santa however is an immaterial thing and it is form of persons body. Santa is separated from real body upon death. Santa however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that Santa cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of Santa Claus is false.

Shame on you. Now you won’t get anything for Christmas.

 

[Bookcat]

Saint Nicholas is very real. His soul is with God and at the resurrection will have a resurrected body. Until then he remains “real” his soul is immortal and cannot cease to exist. God knows quite well all of this and all about him. It is God who holds his being in existence.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Children believe that Santa Claus is a real man. Santa however is an immaterial thing and it is form of persons body. Santa is separated from real body upon death. Santa however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that Santa cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of Santa Claus is false.

Children believe that Santa is real because their parents tell them he is real. Parents care for their children and would never deceive them so Santa must be real. To believe that Santa doesn’t exist is to believe that millions upon millions of good parents around the world are actively lying to the people they love most in the world. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I knew it was just a matter of time before a “Santa Claus” isn’t real thread was started.

I grew up with Santa, and it never, ever, caused me to not know what Christmas was all about. Parents who want their children to know the real story of Christmas will make sure they do, and they can “do” the Santa thing, too.

In this day and age, why do we want to take all of the good, fanciful things away from children? Don’t they grow up fast enough? Is it so terrible that a jolly, old elf in a red suit brings presents and eats cookies? Really??