Oh I see! Because it was incoherent to you and apparently made no sense to you, out of that I assumed that you didn't understand it.
I understood it, which is a different matter from thinking it coherent. I presumed it was coherent to you and knew that if that was the case you would be able to make it clear
I think today were are obliged by common sense to say: No.
Sadly the tendency today is to pick and choose a selection from a number of paths that accord with one's own disposition, which inevitably tends to following the path of least resistance, which suggests one might indeed cover a good deal of ground, but never actually ascends anywhere.
The path to God is simple, but not easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't generate so much debate. If it were easy, we'd all follow it without the need to comment.
The sage advice seems to be: Find a path, and stick to it.
From The Paradise of the Desert Fathers:
"A beginner who goes from one monastery to another is like a wild animal who jumps this way and that for fear of the halter."
So Namaste Jesus, where is it written that the soul is immortal?
Not really here to make it clear to you though, you thinking that it makes no sense is fine with all of us.
The relationship between the individual with these memories and a self that transcends the physical self makes sense to me. I can understand how that would work. That is enough for me.
What do you think about the fact that so many people think they understand something that you understand as incoherent? Is it a matter of knowledge, or of intelligence?
There are many religious beliefs throughout the world. Is one of them the only true path to God and the others false?
The way I see it, all faiths and religious beliefs are in one way or the other interconnected. I see the differences between them as more cultural than anything else with the goal of each being more or less the same.
Part of what Jesus teaches is to avoid legalistic law bound religion, to seek the spirit not the letter of his law. Remember, his disciples gathered ears of corn to eat when they were hungry against the letter of the law and he himself cured on the Sabbath against the letter of the law.
Such a concept is meaningless in Islam I am informed
That thing with the ears of corn must truly be a miracle. While the word "corn" can be any grain, the term "ears of corn" apply to maze--the vegetable we call "corn" in the modern USA. That's a new world crop whose existence was unknown in 1st century Judea.
Now then, about curing on the Sabbath. By the time of Jesus, Judaism already saw a difference between moral and ritual law, with moral law taking priority. It's not only allowed to break the Sabbath if that is needed to save a life or relieve suffering; it's required.
Sorry, I didn't mean my earlier comment to seem like a direct quote.
As you already know, the Bible does not directly say that the soul is immortal or that we are reincarnated. Many of us believe that both are implied however. A simple web search for either will turn up a myriad of opinions as well as a number of Biblical passages that support positions both for and against.
So how do you square that with
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
and other verses that speak of loss of soul?
It is what it is and says what it says. Your interpretation may not agree with mine and ours may not agree with theirs.
"Faith in God lie not in the words of man, but is born unto you and is contained in your heart."
That's a quote from my late Father-in-law, the most spiritual man I've ever know
So if, It is what it is and says what it says, then when it says a man may loose his soul, that means exactly that?
Your question was answered in the second sentence of the post you quoted.
"Your interpretation may not agree with mine and ours may not agree with theirs."
Meaning, there are many ways to take the various passages in the scripture.
But I think you'll find the weight of informed scholarly knowledge is 'against'.As you already know, the Bible does not directly say that the soul is immortal or that we are reincarnated. Many of us believe that both are implied however. A simple web search for either will turn up a myriad of opinions as well as a number of Biblical passages that support positions both for and against.
But I think you'll find the weight of informed scholarly knowledge is 'against'.
As ever, it evidence that counts, not opinion. Take the text out of context, and you can spin an argument for almost anything.
That's very true. That's why I hate quoting scripture. Taken out of context, as you say, Biblical passages can be interpreted to mean nearly anything.
Personally, I don't put a lot of stock in the details, just the overall story. I've always thought that no one can fully understand the Bible until they've read the whole thing anyway, but even then, opinions vary. Even among informed scholars.
You should to me like you're saying anyone can interpret the Bible any way they like ... it's all the same.
Which is patently nonsense.