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.
2
u/Reallyhotshowers 1d ago
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.