GunnerJ

Fair enough point, theli, but the functional use of the term "immortality," when used by belivers to refer to souls, is that it transends death; that when you die it lives on. In this context, then, "immortal" doesn't mean "not subject to death," but rather, something that can trancend death. Thus, it can still be destroyed. As such, I was correct in saying that "immortal" doesn't refer to something that can never die; in the context of talk about souls this is true. Perhaps it would have helped if I said this earlier.

Oh, and lets please keep the childish referrences to dictionaries to a minimum. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

TrueThinker

Oh boy. There are no omnipontent paradoxes. This may come as a shock to you, but God can't do a lot of things. I could give you a long list. Does that mean God is not omnipotent? God cannot build a rock so heavy He cannot lift because He is omipotent. Apparently "God can't" suddenly means He's lost His power.

You forgot the other one: Can God make a square circle? What about a circle square?

Theli

Rimstalker...

Yes, it transcends the death of the mortal body. It doesn't transcend it's own death.
Do you consider a soul to be a councious entity?

So, I'm not entitled to check out sources?
But you are?
Is everyone looking in a dictionary childish in you eyes?
Please keep this nonpersonal in the future. I don't wan't to resort to stonethrowing, it doesn't belong here.

Theli

Yes, ofcourse this whole debate is just speculations. When it all comes down to evidence, where is the soul?
Where is god?

gone!
And about religion, I agree. I don't think those who came up with this stuff originally, did put too much thought into it. They probably didn't need to either.
Eternity is easy to comprehend if you don't question it.

GunnerJ

Awfully touchy, aren't we, theli?

I don't belive in souls. But those who do use the term immortality in referrence to souls in this way: that when the body dies, it lives on. A nonstandard definition, but it's their beliefs, and to show an inconsistancy in them, we have to assume there premises.

The dictionary is not a "source," as I have demonstrated: its definitions describe usage, they do not dictate them. Using the dictionary to define terms in a philosophical argument is a waste of time. In any situation, a request to stop using dubious authorities is not a denial of your right to use sources; I hope you can understand that.

Please demonstrate that I had any desire to check sources, specifically those of the same caliber of authority on the definitions of terms as Dictioanry.com. Otherwise, kindly take back your ill-thought-out reaction.

Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? Actually, attempting to use a descriptive document to prescribe usage, especially where nonstandard terms may apply, is at least very unwise, if not childish.

Good advice. You ought follow it.

Your last post, with its poorly considered assumptions about what I think, seems to suggest otherwise.

Anyway, lets consider something: if a being has the ability to live indefinately so long as its needs are met, can it be said to be immortal? If I didn't age, but could continue living in my 18-year-old body forever so long as I ate enough food to live, never got sick, and didn't get hit by a bus or anything, could I not be said to be immortal? Such examples demonstrate a differentiation between imortality and indestructablity.

Pomp

For what it's worth, I've always understood "immortal" to mean "immune to death due to aging," or something similar, as opposed to "eternal," which would mean "immune to any death." Your usage may, of course, vary.

Douglas J. Bender

"Immortal" means "always living", essentially (in the future sense, not in the "eternity past" sense). It doesn't mean "indestructible".


In Christ,

Douglas

Theli

There is alot of definitions on the word "immortal".
Imune to aging is the definition they use in movies to describe vampires and such (highlander). I think that is really missleading.
I would say the best definition to immortal is "not subject to death".

This is a question about eternity. If something had a finite timeframe from a specific point, backwards in time or forward in time it is not fully infinite.

The question here is - Is the soul a living entity? If it is then it's destruction should be considered as "death". This is how all conscious beings destruction is reffered as.