What does the (hypothetical) soul take with it?

[emjay]

My first post and the title of the thread are now duly edited for people who see what they expect to see

[Pyrrho]

No-one disputes the fact that the physical body is left behind when a person dies and the soul goes into the afterlife, but what I would like to ask Christians is what of the person goes with the soul?

Actually, there was a time in which many Christians believed that their physical bodies would come with them to heaven. That is the reason the Christian church had such a problem with cremation.   The resurection of Jesus, and the bodies rising out of their graves when Jesus was cruxified are sited by those Christians for that belief.  In Corinthians Paul suggests otherwise.  These links lays out the arguments fairly well. Refiner's Fire  What the Bible Says

...

There is more Biblical support for the idea of the bodily resurrection.  For example:

Matthew 5:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.


Matthew 18:

8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.


Mark 9:

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.


It is better to go to heaven with part of your body missing, then to go to hell.  If one were not having a bodily resurrection, how would one enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye?  Or one hand or one foot?

(Notice, in Matthew 5, it is your whole body that would go to hell, meaning your body will live again.)  


And, of course, you are right, that the emphasis on the missing body of Jesus makes no sense if resurrection is spiritual only, and not also involving the physical body.  If the resurrection is only "spiritual," where is Jesus' body?  It would have remained if the resurrection is only spiritual.  There is no hint that there was a body remaining when Jesus supposedly ascended into heaven.


But, like with so many other things, the Bible is not consistent on this.  For those who want more on this topic, they can start with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_the_dead

[emjay]

I'd recommend the book "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula. In it it talks about what the Buddha, as a person, taught and there is nothing metaphysical about it. He comes across as an expert in psychology and the ideas make a lot of sense. If I were to follow any 'religion' that would be it but at that point in time it was not a religion, just the teachings of a wise man who never claimed to be anything other than that - he did not believe in any god nor claim to speak for any god.

I'm familiar with the stripped down meditative and contemplation-focused version of Buddhism (Four Noble Truths, Eight-Fold Path and all that), but I wouldn't call that anything 'scientific', nor especially astounding for its time.  Additionally, if there's any hint of samsara or karma or anything like that, then any veneer of 'scientific' really goes out the window.

Yes, that was the part I was referring to - the Four Noble Truths etc. Admittedly there is talk of some form of reincarnation even at that stage but it is very different from what later versions of Buddhism teach and has none of the superstitious connotations, nor arbitrary levels of reincarnation in a hierarchy. It is put forward as a logical argument and extension of earlier ideas but still doesn't convince. But the other, earthly stuff is still cool.

[FatAndFaithless]

Right, but none of that is what I'd call 'scientific'. Interesting thought experiments with some good ideas and some bad ideas with vaguely supernatural stuff sprinkled in? Sure. Just because it deals in extremely vague and ill-defined ideas doesn't make it any more striking or resonant to me.

[emjay]

Right, but none of that is what I'd call 'scientific'.  Interesting thought experiments with some good ideas and some bad ideas with vaguely supernatural stuff sprinkled in?  Sure.  Just because it deals in extremely vague and ill-defined ideas doesn't make it any more striking or resonant to me.

Okay maybe not scientific but he arrived at it by a process of logical enquiry. Personally I'd call that scientific but if not that then philosophical. But all only coming from what he observed in himself, so introspective and not based on anything supernatural.

[Minimalist]

When evidence can be produced for a soul then the question will be worthy of consideration. Not before.

[emjay]

When evidence can be produced for a soul then the question will be worthy of consideration.  Not before.

I wasn't trying to prove a soul. I don't believe in a soul. I was asking Theists to prove a soul.

[Lek]

I wasn't trying to prove a soul. I don't believe in a soul. I was asking Theists to prove a soul.

I believe in the existence of our soul, but I can't prove it to you. Anyway, as Jenny pointed out earlier, the bible has much to say about us being in our bodies during the afterlife. It also refers to a "new earth" which he had prepared for us. When we die the soul survives and the body dies. On the final day, our bodies will be resurrected and will be reunited with our souls. Obviously, we will be living in a physical place after that time. I believe that the soul that survives earthly death is the essence of who we are and will retain all our memories and so on, and that we will recognize the people that we have known on earth.

[dyresand]

A mind exists a soul doesn't the end.

[Lek]

A mind exists a soul doesn't the end.

Okay. You said it and that settles it!