Actually that's one of the major points of lifes like ours and nothing to really be sad about...

do you think thats good? do you believe in SIN?

Well it's one of the most important aspects of our lifes so yeah I think it's a good thing. You have to see it from a perspective though - I don't know how you see things right now...

Do I believe in sin? I think that's not a real question in the end - hmmm how should I express this? Well a sin is something that in the end doesn't really exist. It only comes into existance by comparing things to a premade list consisting of good and bad things making it sort of a subjective thing. I don't think that there is a being the Christianity calls God that judges our doings if you mean that bringing up some sort of single definition of what's a sin and what not...

Our lifes are about what you came up with: This total cut-off from e.g. the knowledge about former lifes and also many more things. At the same time you have the possibility to do whatever you want without any restriction. Life now is about exhausting this freedom and learning while doing so. So even if you are the meanest, most evil person on the entire world and you do horrible things that's doesn't make you "bad" or makes your life less "worth". You weren't given all this freedom without meaning. Maybe this sounds like a confusing concept at first and is a "pro anarchy" or "survival of the fittest" argumentation but it really is not. Many religions tell you certain things are bad and threat you with punishments of all kinds when doing those but that's just half the truth and of course tries to bind people to them by using the fear factor...

You were given the ultimate freedom and you won't get punished by actually using it in a way that someone defined as "wrong". There most certainly exists a concept though which is / could be called "Karma" (it imo isn't a much better word than sin though as there are many definitions of what "Karma" actually means). This once again isn't about punishment but rather a concept of actio=reactio. To simplify it a bit and give an example: If you're an oppressor in one of your lifes you most likely might find yourself in the role of someone oppressed in one of your next lifes. So there is a consequence in your doings but it's no punishment and also no judgement in terms of good and bad - just a consequence...

Yet again this also might sound a bit confusing as there seems to be little sense in e.g. playing Ping-Pong between two roles. In the beginning I said something about learning which life is about. When you think about it a bit more you might understand the direction which sort of is given and you can only really reach, understand or even better "live" by actually having learned in your lifes...

There's a lot more about it but I hope I have given you some kind of start or overview...

but the bad side is born again and need to learn everything again! thats.. bad
if we could retain the knowledge, we would just improve it? right...
Memories goes!

interesting radio interview is :
http://216.18.211.130/audio/Bill_Deagle_Project_Camelot_Nutrimedical_Report_Jan_12_2010_part_1.mp3

The concept of everlasting life is referenced a lot in the New Testament, and along with the aforementioned concept of a bodily death being different (and less significant) than the kind of death God could put on you, these point towards an extra essential part of us that isn't physical.

Add to that descriptions of us being raised with bodies unlike what we have now: what makes those bodies us if they don't share the same physical nature as what we have now -- surely there is more to us than a physical body in a complex and constant chain reaction if "we" can be enjoy everlasting life after the death and decay of our bodies.

The Bible doesn't appear to describe what a soul is, but I don't think it needs to. My soul seems intuitive to me, and is not something I had to be taught. Instead, "soul" is a word that I associate with something I've always had based on the context in which it is often used. Apparently Jewish tradition does contain descriptions of the soul, its function, its origin, and so on. But I don't know anything about the details of that.

So, yes, the idea of an immortal soul is supported by the Bible, even if we aren't told, "This is what a 'soul' is".

Jibb

Which is what I said, it's not actually in the bible. Especially conceptually, it's different.



No, you're wrong here. This is exactly what I meant with the difference between popular theology and the actual content of the scriptures. But hey be my guest and believe whatever you want or whatever your local churchleader commands you.



The New Testament is the Greek Testament, the second major division of the bible. You should brush up your knowledge about it's history and what structural supersessionism means... as this exactly proves my point!

Easy there, mate. I rarely take the minister's word as gospel until I've looked in my Bible myself. Generally during a sermon most of the congregation has their Bibles open in front of them, following along. I'm not saying "immortal soul is supported by the Bible" just because I have been told so. You suggested I look into it, and I did.

Here's a fairly well-known one:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
Also:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50
Yes, the New Testament is the "Greek Testament", because it was originally written in Greek. What's wrong with that? That certainly doesn't impose "ancient Greek philosphy" on it, although the possibility is there. You're implying that nothing in the New Testament is of worth unless it is already in the Old Testament. Wouldn't that make the New Testament redundant?

You can't tell me that I won't find what I'm looking for in Christian Scripture, and then when I find it tell me it's useless because it's in the wrong half.

Jibb

It was written in Greek because it came from the Eastern Roman empire, an area that tried hard to become as 'Greek' as possible when it comes to many things, not just Greek philosophy. Oh and at that time it wasn't actually ancient philosophy, but what they believed in back then. Hence that link there really is pretty obvious.



Well, why rewrite something, when it's supposed to have been of divine origin? This is what I meant with supersessionism, or replacement theology. It's pretty obvious the Old and New Testament often clash, both in content and ideology. I could open a new topic on that, but it should be dead obvious to anyone who knows even a little about the bible.



No, not at all, because it's really not actually in there.



This clearly refers to the afterlife and potentially speaks about heaven, not the 'soul'. That's simply a big stretch of what I would consider the most common interpretation. After all, Jesus doesn't give people a soul. Even in Christianity, in a philosophical sense, every one has their soul already. This text clearly speaks of how the afterlife would be eternal.



This is typical rally speech for the oppressed to be honest and should be seen in a context of exaggeration and soul here could very well just mean 'hope'.
I'm not saying it doesn't mention the word soul here, but I do think it's pretty obvious from the context that it's not very specific about what 'soul' means here.
When it comes to parallel translations of this very same piece of text, you'll see people interpret it in all kinds of ways. Some even go as far as to say there's a separate hell for the body and another one for the soul, but that's really all just a modern interpretation of what could very well have meant something else in ancient days.



One could interpret this as simply being the notion that one has to physically die before being able to get in heaven. (very convenient too, as this removes the burden of proving heaven even exist)

'The imperishable' might imply that it speaks of a soul in the sense you believe here, but it's still pretty unspecific in a literal sense. It's the same lyrical writing style the bible's full off, that can really mean anything or nothing at all.

"nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

In my opinion this basically means so much as 'something liable to perish or decay, won't become indestructible (through death). Meaning death will be a transformation.

Where in this do you think it would infer speaking of a soul in the definition you speak of??



You're not going to admit this and you don't have to, but all you've really found are your own interpretations. I don't want to sound arrogant here, but in a way this is exactly what I had predicted. It's the difference between popular theology and the actual scriptures.



I seriously doubt that.

Like I already said, such a link provides an opportunity for the New Testament to be tainted that way, but neither makes it certain nor probable. Many of the letters admonish those converts who attempt to hold on to parts of their former religions.
Wow. How can one have an eternal afterlife and a dying body if there's no more to them than physical interactions? Really, I'd love to know. Before you point to Buddhism's concept of "rebirth" -- despite having no concept of soul, one is connected from one life to the next by their karma. Hindus have a somewhat similar concept to us of a soul -- an "atman" that connects their reincarnations. I'd love to hear how one can look at Christianity's eternal life and a physical death, and not see their being more to us than the physical.An exaggeration of what? What could it possibly mean? Even an over-the-top pep-talk has some sort of meaning. I'm sure we can agree to disagree in this situation, but you must be able to admit that replacing "soul" with "hope" is a stretch, and the fact that that's your best conclusion is indicative of a biased interpretation. That verse could very easily be literal, and fits with everything else.It's easy to say those are my "own interpretations". But as I pointed out above, it's easy to see your own interpretations of what I found are a stretch.

If you actually had a good look for yourself, you'd realise that it isn't that open to interpretation. Instead, you give the impression that you have read some secular studies and articles on Christianity and taken their word for it.You're just imposing your own view on me. I'm not here to lie.

Jibb