The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

[William]

Lately some of us have been arguing from three differing positions is which the bible can be used to defend all three. All three appear to agree that each individual has a "Soul" although there may be disagreement on what the exact function of a "Soul" is.

[1] A "Person" is "Spirit" and temporarily exists as a human being until the body dies then that "Person" enters an afterlife and is judged by "God" and is condemned or saved. Those saved go to "heaven" and those condemned go to "Hell" - or in some variances on this, are "exterminated".

[2] A "Person" a "Human being" and when the human being dies, that is the end of that person unless "God" judges them as "saved" in which case that person is resurrected and given a new body which will last forever more.

[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.

Often any different position which opposes another might logically mean that they both cannot be correct, assuming one or the other is true.

Both [1]&[2] fall into this category as they cannot both be true. [1]&[2] also both agree that [3] is false.

However, [3] Can be true without making the other two false.

And [3] - just as with [1]&[2] can be backed by the bible, depending on what parts of the bible once uses to do so.

The bible is interpreted throughout, based upon which position [1][2] or [3] is being used to interpret it through [the filter].

If [1]&[2] oppose each other but can still be "proven" by using the bible, then this makes the bible something of a contradiction.

But if [3] - although different from [1]&[2] does not oppose either [1]&[2] and can still be "proven" by using the bible just like [1]&[2], then [3] takes away the contradictory aspect of the bible which [1]&[2] create by being in opposition.

Question: Would it be fair to say therefore, that [3] is the best position to assume on the overall biblical script to do with the subject of the next phase [afterlife]?

[The Tanager]

It appears to me that by your use of the words 'non-physical' you are suggesting one is real while the other is not.

I’m not suggesting that at all. In fact, I have stated that I believe there are both real physical things and real non-physical things. I’m not sure the physical vs. non-physical issue is that important to our discussion. I only brought it up because, as I said, I would agree with you that Creation existing in the Creator’s Mind is more logical than creatio ex nihilo if you could show that all of reality was non-physical.

You claim that your idea of The Creator being separate from the creation is an act of love and you also claim my idea that The Creator is not separate from the creation is NOT an act of love.

My claim is that a Creator that becomes the Creation in order to experience ignorance, evil, etc. is not an act of love because ignorance and evil are not “goods” and, therefore, could not be an act of willing the good of a being (even One’s self).

It seems logical to conclude that all experience regardless of how different they are from one another, are legitimate.

Legitimate in what sense? We are traveling in the desert together. I think there is a water source up ahead. You know I’m seeing a mirage. Are both of these experiences ‘legitimate’? Are they both accurate depictions of reality outside of our subjective experiences?

Partially correctly identifies your view, I would agree. Your view also incorporates the belief that the immaterial is separate from the material.

Sure, but (a) and (b) didn’t make a claim about that. My view also incorporates other features of what immaterial things exist and what they are like, etc., but we aren’t talking about those features.

Incorrect. The word 'immaterial" derives from equivocation [a form of prevarication] because it is largely based upon guesswork and superstition than on data gathering and sorting.

We know that Consciousness is invisible except through form, where it becomes measurable to some degree.
We cannot truly say that it is "immaterial" simply because it is invisible because we know that - invisible of not, it is real. For we are it.

When comparing "material" with "immaterial" we are really actually speaking of two different states which interact - one [perhaps] passively and the other purposefully.

The "material" is that which is built from that which already exists -and that which already exists, I refer to as "Mind of The Creator." and you refer to as "creatio ex nihilo"

I’m not making a claim about what fits into the “immaterial” category for what I’ve said in this specific context. It’s irrelevant whether or not Consciousness is rightly called immaterial or not. Neither do I use immaterial as an antonym of “real”. Neither do I refer to “that which already exists” as creatio ex nihilo.

In creatio ex nihilo the container is part of the universe that was made.

This is also the case with many scientific theories of the make up of the Universe.

Okay, but you said that in my view the container is the nihilo, that the nihilo is really a thing that exists within which the universe comes to reside. It’s not.

In doing so, we have no requirement to believe "creatio ex nihilo" in relation to the idea of The Creator being separate from Its creation.

This is different than your initial critique, which is what I’ve responded to. Your initial critique was that creatio ex nihilo was illogical. I never claimed that creatio ex nihilo was logically necessary.

It is simply saying that it is a base logical assumption. When differing images [as further assumption and not necessarily logical] of The Creator are superimposed upon this base assumption, then the wheels get wobbly, and non-theists [quite rightly] shake their heads and shrug and Ex nihilo nihil fit becomes the better option as it is less confused by the superimposing theist thinking has brought to the table.

Then let’s talk about those supposed contradictions. Support them. If you would respond that you have been doing so in this thread, then I think your case is weak (just as you think yours is strong and mine weak) but will listen to anything new you have to offer in support.

You have yet to convince me that The Creator is separate from the creation or what we refer to as 'good' and 'evil' are static., and I am unconvinced that the biblical account of how humans came to be and consider the story of the Garden of Eden to be fictional.

Okay. I’ve been responding to your critiques of my Christian view, not offering the full positive case for my view.

Wretched in its portrayal of The Creator of this Universe. Steeped in superstitious nonsense of an Entity who blames and shames and curses the unfortunate critters. Such come from minds unacquainted with higher/broader learning. It leaves the masses with a collective psyche of feelings of worthlessness and abandonment and being imprisoned in this Universe, for wrongdoing.

Interpretations of the texts and people that you have not (in my eyes) been able to rationally support for reasons I’ve given.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #202]

In fact, I have stated that I believe there are both real physical things and real non-physical things.

Okay - but what does that mean to you?
When you say "real non-physical things", are you saying that they exist other than in this universe, or solely in this universe or both or only in alternate universes?
Also - do you mean they cannot be physically interacted with, as in touched and felt, or seen and heard?
Things like that...

My claim is that a Creator that becomes the Creation in order to experience ignorance, evil, etc. is not an act of love because ignorance and evil are not “goods” and, therefore, could not be an act of willing the good of a being (even One’s self).

And my claim that this is indeed possible if The Creator is using this universe for that purpose, with an agenda in mind and the 'evil/good' stuff is simply a very tiny phase of that process and one worth going through.

It seems logical to conclude that all experience regardless of how different they are from one another, are legitimate.

Legitimate in what sense?

Legitimate in regard to theistic thought.

Legitimate in what sense? We are traveling in the desert together. I think there is a water source up ahead. You know I’m seeing a mirage. Are both of these experiences ‘legitimate’? Are they both accurate depictions of reality outside of our subjective experiences?

Is this where you have been coming from with your argument all along? What has that to do with theistic thinking?
I mean...taking your desert example, if we went into the desert and I staved myself for 40 days and then thought that a being called Satan was tempting me, but you saw no thing of the sort, are both those experiences legitimate?

Obviously [as usual] it appears we have been talking about two different things thinking we are not.

[The Tanager]

Okay - but what does that mean to you?
When you say "real non-physical things", are you saying that they exist other than in this universe, or solely in this universe or both or only in alternate universes?

What do you mean by “universe”? For example, would you consider the Biblical idea of “heaven” (if it were true) to be another “universe” than the material “universe” we live in? Do you mean multi-verses or alternate realities where the same people have experienced slightly different events in their lives and that kind of thing? Other things?

Also - do you mean they cannot be physically interacted with, as in touched and felt, or seen and heard?
Things like that...

I think the non-physical would have to "take on" physical matter in order to be touched, felt, seen, smelled, or heard. For instance, the non-physical would have to cause sound waves (which are physical) in order to be heard as an audible voice.

And my claim that this is indeed possible if The Creator is using this universe for that purpose, with an agenda in mind and the 'evil/good' stuff is simply a very tiny phase of that process and one worth going through.

If the evil/good stuff is a phase, then it’s not what I’m calling “evil/good.” “Evil” would simply be something that doesn’t appear to be good but actually is. I think child abuse is actually evil. Even if the one abused later does great amounts of good, becomes a better person, etc. Yes, the evil would be a part of what lead them to later do good, but that doesn’t make that evil itself a good.

It seems logical to conclude that all experience regardless of how different they are from one another, are legitimate.

Legitimate in what sense?

Legitimate in regard to theistic thought.

We are traveling in the desert together. I think there is a water source up ahead. You know I’m seeing a mirage. Are both of these experiences ‘legitimate’? Are they both accurate depictions of reality outside of our subjective experiences?

Is this where you have been coming from with your argument all along? What has that to do with theistic thinking?
I mean...taking your desert example, if we went into the desert and I staved myself for 40 days and then thought that a being called Satan was tempting me, but you saw no thing of the sort, are both those experiences legitimate?

This is a question about what you mean, not coming from my arguments. Is the experience of one who thinks Christian doctrine is the whole truth about The Creator “legitimate” in how you are using this term? If so, do you mean that it is legitimate in that it is experienced by people as being the whole truth (although it isn’t the whole truth)?

[onewithhim]

However, the Bible is clear that Jesus was raised as a spirit and there are several accounts of spirits taking the physical form of a man.

Where is it clear that Jesus was raised from the tomb as a spirit?

I Corinthians 15:45: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living person [soul].' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

I Peter 3:18: "For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

I don't think it can be any clearer than that. And remember, when he went in to see the disciples after his resurrection, the doors were locked, and yet he suddenly appeared to them. (John 20:19,26)

[onewithhim]

There were witnesses who saw Jesus carried "up into heaven." This probably means they saw Him carried up into the skies above the earth.

But Jesus cannot be carried into the Kingdom of God because Jesus was a man...If Jesus is a man, He isn't in Heaven.

This is a little confusing for me...

Do you believe Jesus was resurrected as a man (a human being) ?

If so, when he ascended into the "sky" was he still a man?

If so... what happened to Jesus the man after he was concealed from his disciples view ?

- Did he go into some waiting area?
- Did he change from a human to a spirit?

There are natural bodies and spiritual bodies.

Jesus was resurrected from the tomb as a natural bodied man.

He was seen being carried up into the heavens about 40 days later as a man.

But no man can inherit the Kingdom of God.

To enter the spiritual Kingdom of Heaven Jesus would need to be a spirit.

==============================================

But if He becomes a spiritual being He has accepted His reward for living a sinless life.

And if He accepts His deserved inheritance, He cannot also offer it to us a free gift.

So we have a quandary.

We have no quandary. Jesus gave his life as a human for our redemption. That means his life as a human man was done. He gave that up. If he took back his human life, he would be taking back his sacrifice, and we would still be in our sins.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #204]

What do you mean by “universe”? For example, would you consider the Biblical idea of “heaven” (if it were true) to be another “universe” than the material “universe” we live in? Do you mean multi-verses or alternate realities where the same people have experienced slightly different events in their lives and that kind of thing? Other things?

We can look into the meaning of 'universe' later. For now I am interested in what you meant when you wrote that you believe there are both real physical things and real non-physical things.

I think the non-physical would have to "take on" physical matter in order to be touched, felt, seen, smelled, or heard. For instance, the non-physical would have to cause sound waves (which are physical) in order to be heard as an audible voice.

How is that accomplished? For example, do the non-physical use some kind of human shell to dress themselves in for the task? How do they make these physical costumes when they themselves are non-physical? Where do they store these costumes?
Also - can these non-physical entities see and touch and feel one another, and if so, how do they do that?

If the evil/good stuff is a phase, then it’s not what I’m calling “evil/good.” “Evil” would simply be something that doesn’t appear to be good but actually is.

What do you mean by that? That it is therefore 'good' but simply understood as being 'evil'? Is it possible that it was neither?

I think child abuse is actually evil.

What do you mean by that? All types of child abuse or just certain types?

Even if the one abused later does great amounts of good, becomes a better person, etc. Yes, the evil would be a part of what lead them to later do good, but that doesn’t make that evil itself a good.

Are you saying that if a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good, this does not mean that the evil action was ever good?

Is this where you have been coming from with your argument all along? What has that to do with theistic thinking?
I mean...taking your desert example, if we went into the desert and I staved myself for 40 days and then thought that a being called Satan was tempting me, but you saw no thing of the sort, are both those experiences legitimate?

This is a question about what you mean, not coming from my arguments. Is the experience of one who thinks Christian doctrine is the whole truth about The Creator “legitimate” in how you are using this term?

I used the term in relation to NDE OOBE Astral experiences, as that is what I thought you were referring to, since that was also what I was talking about. Your changing the context to other type experiences [in the desert] isn't what I am talking about.

[The Tanager]

We can look into the meaning of 'universe' later. For now I am interested in what you meant when you wrote that you believe there are both real physical things and real non-physical things.

I believe that ultimate reality is made up of physical and non-physical ‘substances’. Analogically, let’s say plants can be made of plastic or biological material. Both (at least for the analogy) forms can accurately be called real plants. It’s like that but instead of man-made plants and natural plants, ultimate reality has physical and non-physical things.

How is that accomplished? For example, do the non-physical use some kind of human shell to dress themselves in for the task? How do they make these physical costumes when they themselves are non-physical? Where do they store these costumes?

I don’t know. It’s conceivable that they could form matter into temporary “shells,” so to speak. They could directly affect the recipient’s senses. I’m sure there are other possibilities. They wouldn’t need to keep these costumes anywhere.

Also - can these non-physical entities see and touch and feel one another, and if so, how do they do that?

Sight, touch, feeling are physical senses, so while they may do something analogically similar they couldn’t be identical processes.

What do you mean by that? That it is therefore 'good' but simply understood as being 'evil'? Is it possible that it was neither?

Neither as in “neutral”? I think it is possible that there are truly neutral things. I’m not sure if all of reality could truly be neutral, though, at least if it was created by an Intelligence. Intelligences have goals. We both believe that the Creator has a goal for Creation. Things that work towards that goal, it seems, would be called good from the Creator’s position.

What do you mean by that? All types of child abuse or just certain types?

What do you see as the different types of child abuse?

Are you saying that if a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good, this does not mean that the evil action was ever good?

Yes.

I used the term in relation to NDE OOBE Astral experiences, as that is what I thought you were referring to, since that was also what I was talking about. Your changing the context to other type experiences [in the desert] isn't what I am talking about.

I used a different example because I was trying to understand what you meant by something being legitimate. That your context was NDE OOBE Astral experiences was not clear to me. I didn’t know that is what “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” meant. You originally said this in response to me saying that if (a) all of reality is truly non-physical, then (b) you are right that all things being created in the Creator’s Mind is more logical than creatio ex nihilo but that then you need to support (a) being true. So, your support for (a) being true was NDE OOBE Astral experiences?

If so, then can you (1) show why NDE OOBE (if they exist) being real logically necessitates all of reality being non-physical and (2) show why NDE OOBE provide us with truth about reality.

[William]

We can look into the meaning of 'universe' later. For now I am interested in what you meant when you wrote that you believe there are both real physical things and real non-physical things.

I believe that ultimate reality is made up of physical and non-physical ‘substances’.

What is 'ultimate' reality? Are you speaking about non temporal? Are you speaking of permanence?

Analogically, let’s say plants can be made of plastic or biological material. Both (at least for the analogy) forms can accurately be called real plants.

I am not convinced that a plastic plant can be called a real plant. Do you mean that it can look real but once examined closely can be seen to be fake?

It’s like that but instead of man-made plants and natural plants, ultimate reality has physical and non-physical things.

So it seems you are saying that this 'ultimate reality' has fake and real within it?
Are you also suggesting that the physical is fake and the non-physical is not, or do both share the same attribute of 'some are real while others are not'?

How is that accomplished? For example, do the non-physical use some kind of human shell to dress themselves in for the task? How do they make these physical costumes when they themselves are non-physical? Where do they store these costumes?

I don’t know. It’s conceivable that they could form matter into temporary “shells,” so to speak.

It is conceivable that one can eat a cake which will magically remain a cake which one holds in ones hand, therefore having ones cake and eating it too.
But that is a special kind of pleading... /***

They could directly affect the recipient’s senses.

This is more plausible. The non material [Consciousness (of the) Mind] creates temporary [and seemingly solid] environments which can be experienced by said Consciousness, as real.
I mentioned this in prior posts.
Essentially - if this is the case - then we have it backwards as to what 'real' is. It is not the physical, but the non physical - it is not the creation but the mind in which the creation is projected into.

I’m sure there are other possibilities.

Other than physical and non physical possibilities?

They wouldn’t need to keep these costumes anywhere.

Yes. They simple think how they want to be seen and experienced by the perceivers and then go about projecting that into those minds doing the perceiving ...

Also - can these non-physical entities see and touch and feel one another, and if so, how do they do that?

Sight, touch, feeling are physical senses, so while they may do something analogically similar they couldn’t be identical processes.

So would you agree then that these are two different processes which can produce the same outcome...?

What do you mean by that? That it is therefore 'good' but simply understood as being 'evil'? Is it possible that it was neither?

Neither as in “neutral”? I think it is possible that there are truly neutral things. I’m not sure if all of reality could truly be neutral, though, at least if it was created by an Intelligence. Intelligences have goals. We both believe that the Creator has a goal for Creation. Things that work towards that goal, it seems, would be called good from the Creator’s position.

Thus - in relation to the creation, it is good if it was created by a good Creator.

What do you mean by that? All types of child abuse or just certain types?

What do you see as the different types of child abuse?

I don't. Abuse is abuse. Some folk do have a type of understanding that some abuse is worse than other abuse. I was just asking in order to ascertain whether you are one of those folk, since you brought it into the argument.

Are you saying that if a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good, this does not mean that the evil action was ever good?

Yes.

Okay...so the parent figure of the Garden story cursed the children figures - and throughout the old testament there is reference to the entity [parent figure] bringing both good and evil onto humans [children figures] and the new testament is about how the evil is ultimately replaced by good.
You are a believer in this are you not?
How do you explain that if a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good, this does not mean that the evil action was ever good?

Are you saying that it is still evil action which was committed?

I used the term in relation to NDE OOBE Astral experiences, as that is what I thought you were referring to, since that was also what I was talking about. Your changing the context to other type experiences [in the desert] isn't what I am talking about.

I used a different example because I was trying to understand what you meant by something being legitimate. That your context was NDE OOBE Astral experiences was not clear to me. I didn’t know that is what “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” meant.

Do you somehow think that theist thinking derives solely from human imagination in which so-called "alternate experience" is just "the brain doing it"?

You originally said this in response to me saying that if (a) all of reality is truly non-physical, then (b) you are right that all things being created in the Creator’s Mind is more logical than creatio ex nihilo but that then you need to support (a) being true. So, your support for (a) being true was NDE OOBE Astral experiences?

Yes. Not just that on its own, either. There are other things which can be examined which also point to that conclusion.

If so, then can you (1) show why NDE OOBE (if they exist) being real logically necessitates all of reality being non-physical and (2) show why NDE OOBE provide us with truth about reality.

It tickles me when theists use arguments which are usually coming from the non-theist sectors.
Non-theists are essentially asking to be shown that 'God' exists, in order that they then might consider it true.

What is your answer to such a request?

and;

If you have such an answer, what would that answer look like in regard to your request for me to 'show you' these thing about NDE OOBE.

My answer to a theist is for that theist to investigate. You have a God. You have the ability through prayer to ask things of that God. The God has the [claimed] ability to answer prayers.

Therefore "Ask and you shall receive" You want evidence? Ask that which can provide said evidence of alternate experience of non-physical reality. The non-physical reality can hear you and respond to your request to be 'shown'.

If [y]our position is the purple dot - what is the most economic way in which you can view the blue object?;

[Eloi]

[Replying to William in post #10] My post responds to a question raised earlier in this topic about whether the Universe is "within" God as part of Him. The answer is NO, because the Word of God explains that He is the source of all primary energy in the Universe, and it is already known that matter is concentration of energy, so matter IS NOT neither the energy by itself (in quality) nor the source that produces it ... therefore, the Universe is separated from God with its own existence and works under the Laws with which it was created by Him.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #10] My post responds to a question raised earlier in this topic about whether the Universe is "within" God as part of Him. The answer is NO, because the Word of God explains that He is the source of all primary energy in the Universe, and it is already known that matter is concentration of energy, so matter IS NOT neither the energy by itself (in quality) nor the source that produces it ... therefore, the Universe is separated from God with its own existence and works under the Laws with which it was created by Him.

My immediate critique of your claim is that IF The Creator is The Source of All Creations THEN The Creator cannot be separate from said Creations..., just as the sea cannot be separate from the land, even that they might appear to be ...in Truth, it is not the case.

Also, IF ones idea of The Creator is that of an Omni Entity, THEN this further reinforces the idea that The Creator is NOT separate from The Creation and to argue otherwise is faulty.