I think it again depends on how you understand hell. If hell is "active" torture, then yes - he would be complicit in it. Alternatively, hell could just be being separated from God, which is much less active, but potentially still very unpleasant, depending on how much people are dependent on God without being aware of it.
For those who are religious
- Thread starter daven1986
- Start date
I think it again depends on how you understand hell. If hell is "active" torture, then yes - he would be complicit in it. Alternatively, hell could just be being separated from God, which is much less active, but potentially still very unpleasant, depending on how much people are dependent on God without being aware of it.
Fire not just being separated.
and yes God has created and as such can control everything.
Because your worshipping or at least tolerating known "lies" (probably not the best word, but can't think of anything better)
Gosh, aren't you pleasant, how Christian. Did it ever occur to you that as a part of this discussion I questioned some basic assumptions to promote further discusion (on this discussion board...........get my drift?) Why would anyone assume the soul exists? it would be as useful and perhaps as probable to assume that the firey pits of hell await on death, fairies live at the bottom of the garden and even, ludicrously, that god exists.
Also, I apologise if you don't think I'm 'helping', it wasn't actually my intention to help, just to contribute my view.
Carry on with your nonsensical ranting then.
But your not though are you? In what way are you doing that? I don't understand, sorry.
It depends how you define soul. To me a soul is just what makes humans more than just other animals. Exactly what it is, is hard to say. You could even reduce it to what makes us who we are.
sentience? inteligence? our synapses are firing and our brains are bigger and more complex but do we have to make up some ethereal construct to explain it? and even worse persist in the belief that it has some permanence
Of course we don't have to. But I think people are to quick to separate the soul from reality. What makes us who we are is our soul.
What don't you get about certain churches we know exactly why they where created. eg. so a king could get divorced. I can't see why people knowing this fact would then use that church.
Or more likely, the millions of unique connections in our brain. If you get brain damaged you change, you are no longer the person you were before.
Last edited:
In that usage I suppose it's a convenient way to sum up a lot of different things - our biology, psychology, social experiences etc. seems confusing given the meanings religious people attach to the word.
Exactly the CoE bares no scrutiny given that single fact.
I don't see why that is particularly a bad thing? Someone didn't agree with the moral code of the Catholic church, and thus decided to start there own church.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. That is your soul.
I agree, but it doesn't have to be any more than that. It only becomes more than that when you believe there is a God who made you like that.
yes but it's probably not a soul is it. it's just the way our brains are wired. There's not something that can be extracted from our head.
unbelievableyou can't see how that's a problem. That a church takes on something other than what is in the bible.
The Bible isn't the be all and end all of the Christian belief system. It's just the most widely agreed upon.
There's more to our personality than how our brain is wired. But ignoring that fact, it could be "extracted" from us, by God anyway, since God can do anything.
why attach the word to it? it's just biology, no need to fruit it up. It's more amazing if you take it at face value than if you start glossing over the biochemistry with catch all nonsense terms.
Because when the phrase was coined people didn't understand our biology. It's just an old term.