Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Once again, the Pro raises some interesting issues in this debate. I’ll keep things simple by going down his list of critiques. The Scope Of This Debate There seems to be some clash around the parameters of this debate. Pro points out that we’re debating whether Conditional Immortality is biblical or not, which in part I agree with. However, let’s look at the Pro’s original challenge in Round One: “I, as the Pro in this debate, agree with this idea [Conditional Immortality] and challenge Con to defend the traditional idea that the soul is naturally immortal.” This suggests a greater burden on the Pro than simply “proving” it’s biblical. To agree with something on the Pro suggests arguing for it, as the Con has been challenged to argue for an opposing idea. If the scope of this debate were just around the biblicalness of Conditional Immortality, I, as the Con, would simply have to “disprove” this position, which doesn’t require defending the traditional idea of an immortal soul. It just involves attacking Conditional Immortality. Since the Con was challenged to strictly defend the traditional idea, I argue that this debate goes beyond the mere biblicalness of Conditional Immortality, given the requirements the Pro set forth in round one. Obviously, if the Pro wants to defend this idea through biblical references, as he did in round two, that’s his choice. Revisiting Biblical Reference To An Immortal Soul The Pro is attempting to argue that I’ve essentially “given him the round” by admitting that the Bible makes no specific reference to an immortal soul. First, let’s look at my statement beyond what the Pro quotes: “…where in the Bible does this idea come from? The answer: it doesn’t. While most Christian faiths believe in an immortal soul, most biblical scholars agree that specific references to this idea are absent within the bible2.” First, apply my previous argument about the scope of this debate to my defense here: just because it’s not directly stated in the Bible doesn’t automatically discount it as an idea. To ask the Con to defend this idea from the bible alone, when this traditional view was not strictly born in the Bible, would be an extremely abusive act on the Pro’s part. Moving forward, if you don’t accept this line of argument, at least consider this. My original point was that the Bible never specifically references this idea, much like it never specifically references the exact theory that Conditional Immortality argues for. This doesn’t automatically mean that an idea such as an immortal soul can’t exist within the teachings of the Bible. I will be demonstrating this point more in my defense of Christianity’s Greek influence. Finally, the Pro is attempting to win this argument on an over-simplified logic fallacy: either Conditional Immortality is biblical, or the Traditional View is biblical. This discounts any other possible option without any sort of logical reasoning. Case in point: the soul may not be immortal at all… or may not even exist. Most importantly, whether something is biblical or not doesn’t answer the greater challenge the Pro initially set forth for both sides. Greek Influence In Christianity The Pro seemed dissatisfied with my reasoning for bringing in Greek philosophy to challenge the logical inconsistencies with Conditional Immortality. He argues that, contrary to what the various biblical scholars/theologians I’ve cited argue, Christian beliefs do come directly from the Bible. Let’s consider this argument a bit further. The Pro “believes that Christian beliefs were born completely from the Bible.” If this is the true, and current mainstream Christian faiths believe in an immortal soul going to Heaven or Hell, then these beliefs must come from the Bible. Keep in mind, I demonstrate the second point in round two through my example of the Westminster Confession, which the Pro hasn’t challenged. Unfortunately, we can’t accept both of these premises without creating an interesting paradox. If beliefs come strictly from the Bible, and I’ve demonstrated that this traditional view is never directly mentioned in the Bible, then how can any mainstream Christian faith believe in this view? Do all these faiths actually believe in Conditional Immortality? If so, then why isn’t Conditional Immorality the “traditional view”? Or perhaps the Bible actually does directly mention the traditional view of an immortal soul, and I just missed it. If so, is that a point for Con? The point is, the Pro’s belief that the Bible is the sole influence on Christian beliefs goes against what most Christian faiths currently believe in. As I’ve demonstrated, the Bible makes no specific reference to the traditional idea of an immortal soul, and yet it’s a cornerstone belief of many Christian faiths. The Pro can’t reconcile this discrepancy under his own logic, but the answer is simple. All of the biblical scholars/theologians are actually right: Christian beliefs have been influenced by sources outside of biblical scripture. Even if the Pro wants to maintain this distinction between the Bible and Greek influence, let’s examine the Bible itself. Take, for example, the concept of Hell. In the New Testament, a few passages that directly mention the presence of Hell include1: Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands Jude 7 And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. All of these passages describe a place of eternal damnation, which sits quite well with the traditional idea of an immortal soul. Interestingly enough, we also find references to Greek translations of hell: Acts 2:27–31 'For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.' "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." On Gehenna (Greek for “the fires of hell”) and Tartarus (Greek for “lower regions”): Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...' " 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment ... (ESV) It seems that we can’t easily dismiss these Greek influences, even within the Bible, which all argue for an immortal soul that can be sent to Hell for eternal judgment. Socrates Arguments Finally, to address my opponent’s critiques on Socrate’s four arguments: 1 & 4. Pro argues that some things don’t fit within overall categories, as in a flightless penguin. Socrates is only arguing for things that are perceptible and not perceptible (you can either observe something or can’t). Using the Pro’s own example: “all birds are perceptible”… proving the Pro’s point would require a bird that doesn’t exist in this material world. 2. Pro challenges my argument because of the common assumption that people retain their identity in Heaven. Perhaps the Pro would like to offer counter evidence as to why this isn’t a component of the traditional idea of an immortal soul? 3. Pro is asking for evidence that the soul survives after being the constant for human life. First, this isn’t exactly what the argument is saying: the soul survives as the constant for human life, not after. Second, science has been working on the whole “evidence” and “proof” thing for many Christian beliefs… starting with the proof of God’s existence. I’ll wait until that challenge is tackled before finding proof for the human soul. Socrates’ arguments survive on the logic I explained in round two. Finally, in his side note, the Pro seems dissatisfied that I haven’t cited Socrates directly. I’d be happy to, if he had in fact written anything down to begin with. All of Socrates’ teachings are only available through the writings of students who came after, particularly Plato. This has been sufficient for the generations of philosophers who’ve followed, and should be sufficient for this debate. Summary To wrap up: I have defended why the Pro’s initial challenge for both sides must go beyond the simple biblicalness of each idea. I demonstrated how the Pro’s belief that Christian beliefs come solely from the Bible contradicts both contemporary theologian literature, and the reality of mainstream Christian faiths that believe in an immortal soul. I’ve shown how the Greek influence I introduced in round two actually exists within the Bible, and describes the presence of a Hell that requires an immortal soul for eternal damnation. Finally, I challenged the Pro’s critiques of Socrates’ logical support for an immortal soul. I’m looking forward to round four. 1. http://christianity.about.com...