Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Round four... ready, set, go!Scope Of The ResolutionBoth the Pro and Con seem to be on the same page now regarding the scope of the debate.Socrates' Arguments1 & 4. Penguins being perceptible is the analogy that closer relates to Socrates' categories of "perceptible" and "not perceptible". Just because one subject (penguins) doesn't fit in a category (flight) doesn't mean that all categories/subject pairs will be flawed. Socrates' categories are meant to describe a basic ontological property of all everything that divides the material world and spiritual world. 2. Granted, common assumption doesn't make a component necessarily true, however I'm not concerned with the absolute truth of a retained identity, but that it is a component of the traditional idea of an immortal soul. The point remains: no reset button is pressed when you get into heaven... if this button was pressed, then you'd have no recollection of the actions/reasons that got you into heaven in the first place. 3. The idea that a soul survives death without eternal existence is a far fetched notion that isn't found in the traditional view of the soul, nor Conditional Immortality as far as I'm familiar with. Further more, as my biblical quotes on Hell point out, it's kind of an eternal sentence. You don't go to Hell for a few years and then just die. Neither is this true for Heaven.Socrates As A ReferenceMy apologies if my summary communicated a misunderstanding, but even concerning the Pro's argument that Socrates shouldn't be cited in reference to Plato's dialogues, my original argument still stands: there is no way to cite Socrates otherwise. More importantly, this doesn't provide a solid reason for why we ought to reject Socrates' arguments in this debate. Plato's dialogues are simply a secondary source for Socrates' ideas.Let's revist the Pro's original argument: "There is no evidence that the Socrates found in Plato's writings holds the views shared by the real Socrates. They were probably Plato's personal views that he put in the mouth of the book version of his teacher." If we accept this logic, then we might as well erase Socrates from the field of philosophy altogether. More importantly, if we're going to remain consistent with this logic, then lets erase the Christian faith. Where exactly did Jesus or God pen their own words within the Bible? How is it that ten commandments that Moses brought down weren't probably his personal views that he put into the mouth of the stone version of his creator? Greek InfluenceOnce again, I apologize for not being more nuanced in my summary of the Pro's argument. Christian beliefs are born out of the Bible... great. As my refutation demonstrates, however, the Greek influence I speak of is in the Bible, and have a connection with the descriptions of Hell that hint at the necessity of an immortal soul. Therefore, even if we want to trace all Christian beliefs to the source of the Bible, these Greek influences remain.SummaryOnce again, I've mainly concenrated on the critiques of the Pro on Socrates' arguments. I've demonstrated why these critiques are argumentatively unfounded, and more importantly fail to dismiss the challenge that Socrates' sets forth on the idea of a mortal soul. Hopefully the Pro will find my characterizations of the Socrates-as-a-reference issue, and the Greek influence issue satisfactory, and will see the logic in my responses. Thanks!