sonmvayina:


In all these your examples...was judgement not for the living?

Was there a place in the authentic Bible where the dead was judged?

Dtruthspeaker:


Why do this to yourself! Did you not read that the dead shall be raised to be judged?

Surely, the judgement of the living upon the earth is merely an Interim/Interlocutory Judgement (Temporary Judgement)

The Day of The Lord is the Day Final Judgements will be all souls both the raised up dead and the livings on the earth of that time.

It's as simple as that!

NNTR:
I dont do argues and I never typed that body =soul and soul = body



Pay a circus, to go see a clown You clowning

You for a start, is a soul and vice versa

The enemy is the 'inner me', you, yourself

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul,
but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

triplechoice, your blind religious indoctrination prevents you from seeing in Matthew 10:28 above that souls can be destroyed. Smh

It is because it belongs to you. It is because the soul, is the intrinsic part of you formed that came alive and would remain alive and intact after death

The soul is you and vice versa
You are a soul that has a visible part called the body. Your soul vibrates and reverberates to all parts of your body. Check your body for its pulses, loll.

Please dont mention me again because the meaning of NNTR, has come into force and you wouldnt get any response from me

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

triplechoice:
Anyone who interprets the genesis account as literal and not as an allegory ,will certainly end up creating a mental pit fall for himself because it will become frustrating to explain or understand how after death an aspect of our being called soul continues to live on.

The genesis account, gives a description of how man (Adam) was created from dust.And after the breath of life was introduced into this body of dust , man became a living soul. The Bible never talked of man having a soul before the body was created from dust or before the breath was introduced. So , from a surface explanation, it is the body plus breath that makes up the soul which is the same as the person or vice versa according to NNTR.

Now death, according to the same Bible is when the body returns back to dust while the breath back to God. So, death( of the living soul) is the reversal of the process that made man a living soul in the first place.

The implication from the above,means that death should be the end of it all. Nothing should remain.

So ,the question now is, from where or from what material do we now have a soul which continues to exist after death?

I have never for once, not exaggerating, gotten any reasonable answer from Christians who still believe that the genesis account actually happened as narrated. The only thing they are quick provide as answers are Bible verses from the new testament which describes the soul facing judgement after death. Such verses, we know, are nothing more than theological proclamations that are only meant to achieve religious conversion.

When the average persons is told that an aspect of himself can be sent to hell fire or destroyed for eternity, he is instantly gripped with fear and would do anything he is told to do to avoid this fate.This is the deceptive conversion tactics used by most religious groups, Christianity especially, to recruit new members. Some other groups will threaten pontential recruits to join them or they face the prospect of endless reincarnation.

But anyone who has a proper interpretation of the Genesis story can never be threatened by anything like hell fire or eternal damnation.

The genesis story is an allegory with important symbolic representations that are not understood by Christians or believers who take the accoun as literal . It has nothing whatsoever to do with current Christianity.

There's is no connection between the old testament and the new testament. It is through sheer humbug that Christians have succeeded in connecting the two parts of the Bible. Any Christian who is not afraid to admit it, can sense that the God of the old and new testament are not the same. One is vindictive and blood thirsty while the other is more benign.

So, @ NNTR as long as you continue to take the Genesis account as literal , it will be difficult for you to give any reasonable response or really know what the soul is. So don't brag and please keep your response to your self.It is not deserving of anything.

Keep to your words and don't respond. Thank you.

triplechoice:

Anyone who interprets the genesis account as literal and not as an allegory ,will certainly end up creating a mental pit fall for himself because it will become frustrating to explain or understand how after death an aspect of our being called soul continues to live on.

The genesis account, gives a description of how man (Adam) was created from dust.And after the breath of life was introduced into this body of dust, man became a living soul. The Bible never talked of man having a soul before the body was created from dust or before the breath was introduced.

Dtruthspeaker:


The Bible never said that Adam smiled sheepishly and gleefully when he saw woman, yet we know he did.

Same here, Mr. Toyoda need not say that he made the engine first, then the shell, before he put the engine into the shell and thereafter put some fuels and oils before the Camry started working.

Natural living has already shown us that when a person is dying unlike when a car or thing dies, we see him (his soul) "going away", even slowly, hence departing.

We see the body is empty hence we call it remains exactly like the chassis of a car, with no engine.

We see all these things and sound reason and knowledge definitely tells us that everything that lives has a battery when the battery is fully removed from it that thing "dies" but the battery itself still has power within it such that it can still be put in another body as the Owner or Creator may determine.

The soul is merely the living battery which powers the shell called the body or flesh of the man!

Man is a spirit displayed physically because of the use of the flesh/body, unlike like angels and other heavenly beings, man would not be seen as we see him today.

triplechoice:

I need an explanation of what keeps the soul functioning after the physical body has been discarded at death.

Is the soul self sustaining after death? How ? Explain the processs of what keeps it going.

DeepsightX:


.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.

DeepsightX:


One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.



I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.