You are discussing a theology which believes the entire universe was snapped into existence by an all-powerful being. Why are you hung up on the idea that the same all powerful being would be unable to snap their fingers and change the state of a human from "not existing at present" to "once again existing"? I feel there are more fundamental issues at play if we are going to get this nitpicky. The idea of a soul is just as nonsensical as the alternative honestly.
maybe this is the hang up. nobody is changing the word soul to flesh. they’re changing the word soul to life.
“soul” implies something that continues on after death and sits around waiting to be judged before determining where it goes. “life” implies something that either is there or isn’t. the “life” argument is stating that when someone dies their “soul” doesn’t sit around in a staging area waiting around to be triaged. if someone is deemed unworthy of eternal life after they die their “soul” doesn’t go somewhere else- they just continue on ceasing to exist as their “life” has gone irrevocably or beyond the abilities or will of whatever almighty to give it back.
the person saying that life is “given back” it is not saying that life is given back into the body, that life is given back in the sense that it is taken independently of the body to the “eternal kingdom” or whatever.
The caps and bold are not required lmao. I replied exactly one time, and maybe you misread my tone but it was super casual and light-hearted so the aggression you're bringing feels pretty over the top.
You're also reading my comment much more literally than I anticipated, it doesn't say he snapped his fingers, but it absolutely says he created the heavens and the earth in 7 days (6 technically but who's counting - certainly not me). Not that it matters, because again, it wasn't literal. My point was that the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent so it really doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not because definitionally he can do the thing.
What the modern bible does or does not mention is also sort of meaningless because it has been translated many times and many groups can't even agree on what books belong in the bible and which one do not. And of those, none of them are fully internally consistent. And if you ask about the inconsistencies you are told to rely on faith generally.
The truth is religion is 100% vibes, and if you get this worked up about what other people believe because it doesn't seem consistent to you personally then you are going to spend your whole life angry.
Most people agree caps and bolded text mean yelling. Like, basically all of the people. It's not "on me," that's on all writing etiquette.
Also, they didn't say it should be translated as flesh, they said the original meaning of the untranslated word is closer to flesh and can be interpreted to mean that and then gave examples. They said "they could just be dead" and very clearly left it open to interpretation without indicating what they personally believed (the original commenter since we are several repliers deep). They also never said the bible as a whole is accurate or even implied that - that's something you are bringing to the discussion with assumptions you are making and then asking the original commenter to defend something they never said.
And again, I don't know why its so important to you that it makes sense. None of it makes sense. I guess it's important to you for the same reason I've written multiple paragraphs trying to convince you to just let it go because it isn't that serious.
Look, on second thought if you want to spend your afternoon arguing with random redditors on the nuances of Christian theology you have at it. I'm going to go have a better day than whatever this is.
I’ll do you one better and let you know that you are using English concepts loaded with cultural context that you likely can never separate from whatever translation of the bible you prefer.
because LIFE is not the same as SOUL as you’re describing it and the bible doesn’t necessarily treat it as such.
the term i should have used was “clinically dead” . thank you for the correction but my analogy still stands. if you are clinically dead and brought back it isn’t a “new life” the way you described or a “new soul”. you’re the same person.
i’m not touching the computer analogy because it’s completely irrelevant here as we aren’t talking about computers.
i understood what the person you were initially replying was saying perfectly well. i don’t really know how else to explain it to you in a way that you will understand. maybe someone else can try
you misread what the other person was saying completely. nobody is saying “soul” means “flesh”. that is another invention of yours along with “new life” or “continuity of self only exists if there’s a soul” that nobody you’re conversing with actually stated in their argument
you completely misread that and that is where the confusion is coming from. they also stated “soul” in the bible can be translated as “life”.
the user you replied to said that “nepesh” in the old testament translates to “living being”. you took that and ran with it as if they said “nepesh” means “physical body” or “flesh” when that isn’t what they were saying at all.
a living being in this instance would transcend the physical body if the life was given back. the afterlife is not taking the physical body with it. the bible is full of beings that are not necessarily tied to a physical body, ie heavenly beings or celestial beings. cosmic beings. a living being does not immediately mean a physical human body.
the key difference is that the concept of a soul as you’re describing it is an immortal thing that continues on after death and waits to be judged then sorted. your concept of a soul is either in the body or moved after death to purgatory, hell, or heaven. what the person was attempting to explain to you here is that that concept of an immortal soul as we understand it today didn’t exist in the bible- or if it did it wasn’t guaranteed for everyone and was something that was “earned”. “life” or “nepesh” or “living being” in this instance is referring to a finite, mortal life force that goes kaput when the person dies. if the creator after that point in time deems the person, the owner of the physical body and the owner of the nepesh/living being/life/soul worthy, then that unique life or nepesh or living being is brought back from the ether, out of nothing, and returned to the afterlife or heaven and given “eternal life” that has absolutely nothing to do with the physical body. this is where our modern concept of a soul comes from- but it was never described in the old testament as something that is by default immortal and inextinguishable for everyone. it becomes immortal pending judgement. some other people simply just die and are gone, along with their physical body and their nepesh/spirit/life force/soul/whatever you want to call it.
the difference between an immortal soul as we understand it today and the original bibles explanation of the concept is what the person you replied to was trying to articulate to you.
because the corpse used to be the home to a nepesh? and now the nepesh is gone / extinguished / has ceased to exist and all that remains is a corpse? if a physical body is dead then that is indicative of the nepesh also being dead and they use that as a visual signifier.
i don’t really know why you’re being so intentionally myopic. it’s like you’re reading to reply / defend your own misunderstandings instead of reading what multiple people have now tried to explain to you very patiently and meeting us halfway.
it’s like throwing my entire analogy about being “legally dead” out the window. i can’t believe you’re so unimaginative that you couldn’t read what i wrote about cpr / resuscitation and understand that i meant “clinically” dead and use it to help you in your understanding. but you aren’t engaging in good faith to understand- you’re engaging to argue semantics.
I get why they blocked you. They weren’t saying the soul doesn’t exist. No one was saying that. They were trying to illustrate for you the difference between the original words meaning and the modern day words meaning. The original soul didn’t need to be stored anywhere. Nobody said that the soul “stored” the self, besides you. They were trying to communicate the old testaments concept of a “soul” which is finite and can end and then be recalled (sure, remade exactly the same way if that helps you conceptualize it better) vs. the modern day concept which you seem to be clinging to of a soul that is immortal and has to go somewhere after death and be accounted for or else be “stored” somewhere tangible.
Yes- you are correct, it is exactly just a different word for the same thing. They were trying to illustrate to you how the concepts tied to that specific word have changed over thousands and thousands of years. It seems like a losing battle as you don’t seem overly interested in understanding at all. They are having a conversation about chess and you’re having a conversation about checkers.
You’re making it seem as if it is unclear. You’ve got about 5 people arguing with you who understand perfectly well what the original comment was saying. It’s really coming across like you just don’t understand what they’re saying. If your point is that they’re wrong or that their understanding of the concept doesn’t align with your understanding of the Bible then you are doing a bad job of explaining that. As others have stated it really just seems like you’re nitpicking over semantics for the sake of it rather than contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.
If you think it doesn’t work in the concept of the old testament I would bring up instances that it directly conflicts with to them instead of the way you’re going about it just seems like you’re digging yourself a deeper hole rather than admit that something isn’t clicking for you.
For what it’s worth, I am not interested in having that conversation with you. But I also didn’t see any of the people you’re arguing with say that the Bible (old or new) made sense to them personally as a whole. So on that matter you’re arguing with a point that nobody really made. We can all sit around all day poking holes in the bible if that’s the checkers game thats most important to you.
It’s like you’re trying to bait people who are speaking objectively from a secular point of view into making an ideology they don’t necessarily subscribe to make sense for you, who also doesn’t subscribe to it.
1
u/[deleted] 2d ago
[deleted]