Judgment of Souls

[Stevil]

Let's say that the soul exists

That it is an immeasurable, unobservable system that accompanies the living body.
It has no mass, nor momentum, it provides no resistance, thus the accelerating/decelerating body behaves exactly the way the laws of physics would dictate based on the sum of the physical/material parts.
But somehow this soul is bound to the body, it is located, presumably in the brain or a part of the brain that is irremovable/irreplaceable, the part which underlies a conscious self awareness.
You can lose an arm, a leg, a kidney, have a heart and lung transplant and yet "your" soul remains with the conscious self awareness still present in your brain. You can even lose specific parts of the brain, some functions may be lost, short term memory, speech, mobility etc but your conscious self awareness may stay unless "that" part of the brain is affected.

Anyway, digressing too much, the soul, attached to a specific part of the brain, co-exists with you, during your life, follows you everywhere and is not affected by sudden changes in momentum, it is metaphysically bonded.

Now the purpose I suppose of the soul is to allow you, as a person to make right and wrong decisions, moral decisions, based on .... the structure/blueprint of the soul. If you have a Good soul then you will act like a good person. If you have a Bad soul you will act like a bad person.

Presumably souls can change, they can decide to give up their own faulty blueprint and instead follow the perfect morals taught by their church.

This all becomes very important once the person dies and the soul is then free to explore the afterlife. The soul then faces judgement day.
The god, inspects the soul as if god were a Spartan inspecting a new born baby, if the soul was defective then it is either cast into eternal torment or destroyed via fire (depending on what you believe).

The Spartans destroyed defective babies presumably in an attempt to build a physically superior race/society, one that had a stronger chance for survival. When our societies encounter dangerous members we can punish them as deterrents to them and others or lock them up in order to protect the rest of society.

So why does the god judge souls? Why are they punished or destroyed? Are they a threat? It can't be a deterrent to others because the living don't ever see what happens to bad souls, they have never had confirmation on what is good or bad behavior, so there are no cautionary lessons to be learned.
Is the afterlife threatened by bad souls? Would they corrupt it? Would this mean the god is not all powerful and seeks to destroy all threats before they can grow in numbers? It seems that disbelief is a greater crime than repentant murder and rape. Does this mean if souls in the afterlife stop believing then the god will lose all its power? If belief is still required this would mean that the souls still won't get any evidence of a god, not even in the afterlife. For if they did, then disbelief would become a moot point.

Anyway, if you read through this long rant, then congratulations, you did well.
I've never been religious, am just trying to make some kind of sense of it. It is bizzare in my opinion.
Maybe I will never understand.

[Recusant]

I don't think that it's that hard to understand. If a religion defines its god as "a just god," i.e. a god whose nature is such that it assures that justice is done (not in this world, since it's clear to anybody that justice is only occasionally done in this world, thus it must be done in the "spiritual realm" or any other invented continuum other than the world we actually inhabit) then that god will mete out punishment to the "bad souls." It's not that they're a threat, it's that they have transgressed against the laws of the god and so will be punished. It's the converse of "pie in the sky when you die."

[Stevil]

I don't think that it's that hard to understand. If a religion defines its god as "a just god," i.e. a god whose nature is such that it assures that justice is done (not in this world, since it's clear to anybody that justice is only occasionally done in this world, thus it must be done in the "spiritual realm" or any other invented continuum other than the world we actually inhabit) then that god will mete out punishment to the "bad souls." It's not that they're a threat, it's that they have transgressed against the laws of the god and so will be punished. It's the converse of "pie in the sky when you die."

But that is vindictive vengeance, to dish out punishment without forward looking purpose.
That would be hate in the purest of sense.

But believers think there god is love, why do they need vindictive vengeance?
Also, if they believe that god's judgment is unavoidable, perfect and just, then why do they also seek to dish out punishment on earth? Why punish the blasphemer twice?

[Recusant]

. . . It's the converse of "pie in the sky when you die."

But that is vindictive vengeance, to dish out punishment without forward looking purpose.
That would be hate in the purest of sense.

But believers think there god is love, why do they need vindictive vengeance?

Do you also consider the concept of karma to be vindictive?

I agree that the supposed justice administered in the afterlife according to the Abrahamic religions has a pernicious quality: It cannot be said to be aimed at healing, nor is it forward looking, as you put it, and I don't defend it. However, given that the moral system embodied by these beliefs was formed by desert tribes thousands of years ago, I don't find it hard to understand its harsh nature. There are several ways by which Christians attempt to reconcile this with the belief that "God is love," and I don't find any of them particularly convincing.

Also, if they believe that god's judgment is unavoidable, perfect and just, then why do they also seek to dish out punishment on earth? Why punish the blasphemer twice?

Can you think of any societies in history which do not attempt to enforce some version of justice?

[Stevil]

Also, if they believe that god's judgment is unavoidable, perfect and just, then why do they also seek to dish out punishment on earth? Why punish the blasphemer twice?[/size]

Can you think of any societies in history which do not attempt to enforce some version of justice?

For the most part I believe the laws of NZ are to protect or disuade rather than vengance.
For the most part our laws are to support a functional and safe society, not a moral one.

Trying people for crimes against god is an act of vengance, but luckily the NZ government don't support that stance.

Trying people for war crimes is an act of vengance with regards to the very old germans who are too old to do any crazy again on people.

[Stevil]

Do you also consider the concept of karma to be vindictive?

As far as I understand it Karma is not a direct consequence, non intentional and non intelligent.
Just an understanding that you treat others well and they are likely to reciprocate

[xSilverPhinx]

Didn't god say in the bible that vengeance is his? No use of apologists trying to say otherwise, it's clear as day in their book...

[AnimatedDirt]

The "soul" doesn't think for itself nor is it something apart from a person.

It is simply that which makes "you, you".

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I, like AD, do not accept the idea of a "soul" as a separate entity from the person.  The Hebrew concept of "nephesh", from which "soul" comes in the Old Testament, is more like the person as a living entity, not a separate thing.  So the judgment is of the person as a whole, and the reason for the judgment is to determine who may enter into the kingdom of God. It's not a matter of vengeance as much as it is a matter of qualifying for the kingdom.  Since neither AD nor I believe in an eternal place of torment for "souls," the idea of vengeance really doesn't have to enter into the picture. It's judgment for a purpose: inclusion or exclusion.

[Recusant]

Can you think of any societies in history which do not attempt to enforce some version of justice?

For the most part I believe the laws of NZ are to protect or disuade rather than vengance.
For the most part our laws are to support a functional and safe society, not a moral one.

OK, but you do have a justice system in New Zealand. You may consider it more enlightened than that envisioned by those who wrote the Bible, and I may agree with you. I would say that they modeled the justice of their god on their own system, at least to some extent. It appears to some modern eyes to be archaic and vengeful, but that's what theologians and apologists are for. They get paid to do the fancy footwork by which the moral code of desert dwellers from thousands of years ago can be made to seem not only relevant in the present age, but eternal. If you want to observe that fancy footwork up close, you're going to have to seek it out; I'm not somebody who knows the steps in any detail.

Trying people for crimes against god is an act of vengance, but luckily the NZ government don't support that stance.

Trying people for war crimes is an act of vengance with regards to the very old germans who are too old to do any crazy again on people.

Again, different people have different conceptions of justice. Can you give some sort of objective evidence that the conception you favor is superior to that of the Bible?

I'd prefer to avoid getting into a discussion of the prosecution of Nazi war crimes, but I personally don't see any reason why the age of the perpetrator (or the amount of time which has passed since the alleged crime) should necessarily have relevance. I'll just ask: Does New Zealand have a statute of limitations on murder?

Do you also consider the concept of karma to be vindictive?

As far as I understand it Karma is not a direct consequence, non intentional and non intelligent.
Just an understanding that you treat others well and they are likely to reciprocate.

That's a contemporary lay understanding of karma which strips it of its religious meaning. In its original form, karma is a formulation of cause and effect which transcends this world; all actions have consequences, and death does not intervene to prevent those consequences. Evil deeds in this world will have negative results, even if the perpetrator of those deeds dies wealthy and relatively happy. In some versions, there is a supernatural being who oversees this process. Even in the more impersonal versions, it's a sort of supernatural justice system, not entirely different from that envisioned by at least some Christians.

[AnimatedDirt]

I, like AD, do not accept the idea of a "soul" as a separate entity from the person.  The Hebrew concept of "nephesh", from which "soul" comes in the Old Testament, is more like the person as a living entity, not a separate thing.  So the judgment is of the person as a whole, and the reason for the judgment is to determine who may enter into the kingdom of God. It's not a matter of vengeance as much as it is a matter of qualifying for the kingdom.  Since neither AD nor I believe in an eternal place of torment for "souls," the idea of vengeance really doesn't have to enter into the picture. It's judgment for a purpose: inclusion or exclusion.

It's a simple mathematical equation I'm sure you all can appreciate.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being [soul].

Dirt + Breath of Life = a living being/soul

(and now you get my username if you didn't already... )

[Stevil]

The "soul" doesn't think for itself nor is it something apart from a person.

It is simply that which makes "you, you".

Yes, I would see the soul as nothing more than conceptual only. A very high level and simplified model of the self.
So when you die, your "soul" dies with you.

But I am surprised that AD and Bruce would agree with this. I thought you guys were into eternal life, life beyond death.

[Stevil]

Since neither AD nor I believe in an eternal place of torment for "souls," the idea of vengeance really doesn't have to enter into the picture. It's judgment for a purpose: inclusion or exclusion.

AD has stated in the past that he believes his god burns unwanted souls into death (non existence). If this were the case then this action is vindictive. Those that are excluded are actively destroyed by this god.
How is this any different to Hitler "excluding" Jews from mortal existence on Earth?

[AnimatedDirt]

So when you die, your "soul" dies with you.

Yes.

But I am surprised that AD and Bruce would agree with this. I thought you guys were into eternal life, life beyond death.

Yes.  If God is the Creator, then he is the reanimator of certain dirt also.  I'd hate to be accused of preaching, so I'll leave it there.

AD has stated in the past that he believes his god burns unwanted souls into death (non existence). If this were the case then this action is vindictive. Those that are excluded are actively destroyed by this god.
How is this any different to Hitler "excluding" Jews from mortal existence on Earth?

The fallacy here is equating a mortal man and his actions to that of God that is the Creator and Sustainer of all life...or so is the claim/belief.

It is simple.  For what reason did Hitler murder these people?  Did he offer them a choice?
It's much like a class-action law suit.  Your choice is whether you want in or don't. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But I am surprised that AD and Bruce would agree with this. I thought you guys were into eternal life, life beyond death.

Resurrection of the body, not afterlife of the soul, is my understanding of the New Testament teaching. But that's just my understanding.