This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

logicophilosophicus's Profile

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Joined almost 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by logicophilosophicus

More Discussions by logicophilosophicus

Latest Comments by logicophilosophicus

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Jump to comment 98 by logicophilosophicus

No dualism in the Bible - asked and exhaustively answered above. Purely textual - interpretation irrelevant. My point is that read literally the Bible refutes the doctrine of an immaterial, immortal soul.

Bible/apocrypha/pseudigraphia have accepted meanings. "The" Bible is basically any of those you list. There is little significant disagreement relevant to this discussion.

I read historians and philogists, not theologians. I leave all that bollocks to you.

Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:09:51 UTC | #951183

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by logicophilosophicus

Hybrid - the dualism was the non-Biblical/non-Christian part. There is no dualism in the Bible.

Contemporary sources claimed Paulicans claimed to follow Paul of Samosata. Irrelevant, anyway. They imposed a new intepretation on the NT 500 years after its compsition. The Jerusalem Chistians and Pauline Christians over half a milennium earlier were of course more authentic. Your Council of Trent reference is a red herring - the question is the Biblical view of the soul, not Apocryphal or Pseudigraphical altenatives.

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:54:04 UTC | #951181

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by logicophilosophicus

@Ignorant Amos

The link you give suggests that

a) Paulicans are not actually followers of the Biblical St Paul

b) Their bizarre hybrid of Christianity and eastern mystery religions dates from the 7th century CE.

So they have no bearing on the question of Biblical views on the soul - which, as demonstrated in this thread, was never thought of as separate from the body, but as the life of the body.

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:17:58 UTC | #951177

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by logicophilosophicus

@ 89

See my comment 52 for my atheist position.

Interesting how JHJ aggressively defends - without a single valid point - his view that the Bible supports the Christian view on the soul; then deduces from my evidenced demonstrations and citations that the Bible does NOT support that theology that I am a "closet Christian"! How does that work?

Still, if you do your best work "on the toilet" what can you expect?

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:06:35 UTC | #951167

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

logicophilosophicus's Avatar Jump to comment 79 by logicophilosophicus


Me: "I'd be genuinely interested in counter examples - any Biblical passage which indicates life without a body, or which suggests that at the point of death the soul survives." JHJ: "No, you wouldn't, or you would have addressed those already mentioned."

That rather sets the tone of your posting: you say I am lying, your evidence (illogically, but never mind) being that I have not addressed any "Biblical passage which indicates life without a body, or which suggests thatbat the point of death the soul survives" from "those already mentioned" in this discussion.

Well, I was briefly embarrassed - I take a pride in never ignoring a question - until I checked back. There are nomsuch passages mentioned by anyone. This is a full list of your own statements of any relevance:

JHJ: "...Could you explain how the basis for resurrection throught the dualism of the soul and body has nothing to do with the book in which it is written?" No such passage mentioned there.

JHJ: "...John is the closest thing to Platonism (actually neo-platonism) in the Bible, but the entire NT story is constructed around soul/body duality..." No such passage mentioned there either.

JHJ: "...the NT shows definite signs of dualism. Even the bodily resurrection of JC requires an undead essence to allow for the reanimation of the body..." That's your own theologising. The Bible says that Jesus was dead until the third day. I specifically countered this with an unambiguous quotation from Revelation (which - surprise, surprise - you have not addressed).

JHJ: "...the entire concept of spirit and body being separable is present in all (well, almost all) Judeo-Christian thought..." Yet again, no passage to address.

JHJ: "Matthew 10:28 (NIV) 'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.' " Ah, that's the one and only passage, which I casually wrote off as one of a few "occasional phrases that can just about be interpreted as hinting at" dualism. Notice that the word "soul" is "psuche" (= Hebrew nun-phe-shin) as already discussed, meaning "life" (or "living creature") and applied to both humans and animals. Notice that the word for "hell" is "Gehenna", a fiery pit or place of destruction, and that the "soul" and body are destroyed there together. There is a meaningful distinction between "kill" and "destroy" but this post is already too long. Suffice it to say that of the dozen mentions of "soul" in the New Testament, half are statements that it is better to live with a damaged body than have body and soul destroyed - the implication being that a completely destroyed body and soul are lost together.

Even the often superficial Wikipedia will tell you that: "Many modern theologians reject the view that the doctrine of the immortal soul is taught in the Bible" (supporting the statement with quotations from ten theologians - as opposed, say, to sceptical atheists).

So where are these passages I claim (falsely according to you) to seek? Your memory is sadly awry if you think you have "already mentioned" some. (Notice that is a more charitable/polite assumption than an accusation of dishonesty.)

Anyway, I raised the topic of the "pneuma". You write:

JHJ: "...the pnuema [is] found throughout the Bible. If you can't find it, you're not looking very hard, which makes me suspect you might be a closet Christian."

Well, I did find it. It isn't found "throughout the Bible" since only the NT is written (in the received version) in Greek. It is NEVER translated as "soul". It does NOT refer to the essence of an individual.

And yet you condescendingly advise me to go and read up on the subject?

End of discussion.

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:16:01 UTC | #951134

More Comments by logicophilosophicus