Tuesday, June 27, 2017

A Christian Examination Of The LGBT Flag

      Most people are familiar with God's covenantal promise to never again send waters to cover the entire land, a promise made to Noah after the Genesis flood. This flood was used as a means of executing judgment on man for his continually godless thoughts. Afterwards, He used a rainbow as a covenant symbol to make the promise to never cast judgement on the human race in the same manner again (Genesis 6:5-8; 8:20-22; 9:11, 12:9-17). Sadly, however, the LGBT community has developed a new method for mocking God's wonderful promise to us through the innovation of a flag that displays only six of the seven colors of the rainbow.

        Having its origin in the State of California by artist Gilbert Baker, this flag was designed by lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals to represent their own diverse values through the Gay Pride Movement, which has now been popularized throughout the world. What is striking about this flag is that its colors mock that of God's covenantal promise, the rainbow, to man to never again judge man by means of a flood. While God's rainbow has seven different colors, the LGBT flag only has six colors of the rainbow. It is missing the color indigo. Not only does the symbolism of the flag contain six out the seven different colors of the rainbow, but it is also important to recognize that the number six is the spiritual number for fallen man and that seven is God's spiritual number. This can readily be seen as mockery of the Divine Creator.

        The entire foundation of the Gay Pride Movement has been built on pride and self-promotion. This has manifested itself through wild parades, festivals, clownish apparel, and imagery on public business signs or logos. Furthermore, the most radical members of the LGBT community have literally fought to silence all forms of disagreement, regardless of whether objections are established on scientific or philosophical grounds. The LGBT community is readily getting the attention that it wants because so many people are too afraid to be called haters and bigots. This movement would stop if enough people had the courage to refused to cater to the demands of these people. This constitutes a most brazen violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The very reason such ideas were built into the fabric of our civilization by our Founding Fathers was to help maintain a peaceful order.

       Gay pride is contrary to everything that the Bible states regarding humility and sexuality. He opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; James 4:5). The people who exalt themselves will be humbled (Matthew 23:12). We need to humble ourselves before God and repent (James 4:7-8). He absolutely detests pride (Proverbs 8:13). Scripture emphatically condemns homosexuality. While it is true that God promised to never again cast judgment on the people of this world by means of a flood, He never stated He would not judge us again. In fact, we have been told that we shall have to render an account for all of our past deeds to Him (Romans 14:12). God's rainbow was meant to serve as a symbol of remembrance, not as a means of pride. He will not tolerate mockery. He will not tolerate the celebration of sin. Thus, all faithful Christians have been called to speak out against the LGBT flag.

Friday, June 23, 2017

A Christian Response To Transgenderism

        In today's society, much debate and perplexity has emerged over some of the most basic facets of life. Unfortunately, people have found themselves unable to answer questions with obvious answers such as their gender identity. While the Book of Genesis presents us with the very simple blueprint of gender identity as being either male or female, educators, psychiatrists, and politicians who subscribe to a liberal secularist worldview believe that it is morally impermissible for parents to be labeling their children as being boys or girls. In other words, it is being suggesting that things are not as they appear to our eyes, which defies basic logic. Thus, these people maintain that our children should have the "right" to choose their own personal gender identities (a male chooses to identify himself as being a female and vise versa).

        What people need to recognize is that gender is a biological reality that is determined by our DNA. The same elementary scientific principle regarding the determination of gender is equally applicable to our skin and hair color. The truth of the matter is that we cannot alter our gender, any more than we can choose to have different skin or hair colors. Furthermore, we know that only two different gender possibilities exist because only two different pairs of genitalia exist. There are only XX (female) and XY (male) genes. God has given us these bodily designs for the sake of human procreation. It follows from the premises of this argument that our gender identities cannot be based on emotions and preferences. If people can violate basic scientific laws by altering their gender, then why not also choose to become a squirrel or giraffe? Can a human being cease to be human? The only thing that medical procedures can do is change the outer appearance of people. To accept transgenderism as being morally acceptable is to reject the voice of reason.

        In all cases, truth must be affirmed. This obviously encompasses the natural gender of our children at birth. In other words, males need to be taught male customs and females need to be taught female customs. Moreover, parents need to teach their children the difference between right and wrong (Proverbs 22:6). Any notion of common sense can exist only in an environment in which there is a common morality accepted. Ever since the secular world rejected the existence of objective moral truths, Western culture degenerated exponentially. Although any amount of conditioning through physical, psychological, or sexual abuse may cause a person to experience confusion regarding his or her gender, such struggles can be overcome through plenty of encouragement, discipline, and psychological training. We can assume, imagine, or have a desire to be a different gender, but having such mental inclinations does not change our internal genetic makeup, any more than saying, imagining, or wanting to be a giraffe actually makes us one. How we feel about something does not determine reality. An affirmation of transgenderism is a denial of truth.

        It is worth noting the negative psychological effects of transsexual ideology being promoted by the left. In 2016, the Obama Administration passed laws ordering the public school systems to allow members of the opposite sexes to share restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Since then, other public places such as grocery stores, parks, and universities have adopted the idea of using "transgender" bathrooms. Can anybody not see the inherent moral flaws of this ideology? First of all, any pervert can claim to be any random gender. Secondly, our right to privacy has been violated. Thirdly, the innocence of our children is at an elevated risk of being corrupted. They have no understanding of the real world. And fourthly, it is evil to brainwash people into believing that they can choose to be a different gender only to be enslaved to a lifetime exposure of carcinogenic, toxic hormones. It is wrong to mutilate healthy functioning parts of the body.

        Should the Christian church make compromises for transgender ideology? The emphatic answer to this question is, no. God created mankind in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). He also called His creations "good" (Genesis 1:31). Us wanting to alter our gender is in a very real sense putting God to an open shame. In choosing to undergo gender reassignment procedures, one is essentially saying that He did an imperfect job in designing the universe (to be more specific, our bodies). We are putting ourselves in the place of the Creator, which is idolatry. Scripture says that God made male and female. That is an unchangeable reality. Romans 1:22 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Are The Religions Of Christianity And Islam Compatible?

  • Introduction:
          -The Islamic religion was established during the seventh century by an Arabian merchant named Muhammad. This man claimed that the angel Gabriel repeatedly visited him for the purpose of giving him divine revelation from God. Hence, Muhammad recorded the words of Allah, the Arabic name for god which is occupied by Muslims, into the sacred religious text known to us as the Koran. He spread his new-found ideological system through brutal conquest, torture, and execution.
  • Contrasting The Christian and Muslim Worldviews:
          -While both religions profess monotheism, Islam denies the biblical concept of the Trinity, which teaches that one God exists in three separate, divine Persons (Matthew 28:19-20; John 10:30 Ephesians 4:4-6). The Koran identifies the Trinity as God the Father, Mary, and Jesus Christ. If the Muslim holy book is divine revelation, then why does it misrepresent Christian doctrine?
          -While Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, is co-eternal with the Father, the Son of God, was crucified, and resurrected from the grave (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24; John 2:19-20; 20:26-28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), the religion of Islam flatly denies all of these essential Christian doctrines. Moreover, Islam teaches that Jesus was only a good moral teacher who was subordinate to the Prophet Muhammad. So it appears that the religions of Christianity and Islam are not compatible. We do not worship the same god.
          -While Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity who testifies in favor of Jesus Christ (John 14:26), Islam teaches that He is the angel Gabriel. Also, the Muslim religion calls Muhammad the "helper." It is also interesting to note that Islam affirms the virgin birth.
          -The Koran teaches that man is saved entirely on the basis of good works. Consider, for example, the mandatory completion of the Five Pillars, which are: 1. profession of Islamic faith, 2. daily prayer, 3.) almsgiving, 4. fasting during the month of Ramadan, and 5. making a pilgrimage to Mecca. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone through our faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). Scripture affirms that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Islam offers adherents no assurance of salvation, which results in them living lives of fear and anxiety. Is a life characterized by such even worth living? 
          -In Christianity, the kingdom of God is for all people who have been saved by the grace of God. It is complete, eternal unity with our divine Creator. However, to Muslims the place of paradise is a place of debauchery, that is, where all worldly desires ranging from sexual pleasure to alcoholic consumption can be fulfilled. It is believed by Muslims that they will receive seventy virgins. Islam denies original sin. So it is difficult to see how Muslims can consistently condemn evil behavior.
  • Countering The Islamic Claim That The Christian Bible Has Been Lost And Corrupted:
          -How can Muslims claim that the Bible has been corrupted when their own holy book admits to the divine inspiration of the Torah (Sura 2:87), the Psalms (Sura 4:163), and the gospel (Sura 3:3-4; 5:46)? According to the Koran, the words of Allah cannot be perverted (Sura 6:34; 6:115; 10:64).
          -It follows that the Muslim claim that the Christian Bible has been lost and corrupted is false. Ironically, the Koran never even makes such a claim. But how can we embrace two sources of divine revelation that contradict each other?
          -If Muslims are going to be consistent with their own argument, then they will have to call Allah a liar. Moreover, it needs to be told who is the culprit for any alleged corruption in the Bible, where, and when this all happened. The text cannot be dismissed just because it conflicts with the Koran.
  • Inconsistencies In Muslim Logic:
          -"In Surah 29:46, the Quran commands Muslims to say to Christians, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you, and our God and your God is one, and we are all Muslims to Him." Yet many Muslims say something very different to Christians. They say, "We don't believe in your book, because it's been corrupted and your God is a false god." If Muslims are commanded to say that they believe in what has been revealed to us, why do they instead say that they don't believe in the Bible, the only revelation we have? And if they're commanded to say that our God and their god is one, why do they instead say that our God is a false god?" (Excerpt taken from a tract titled "The Bible God's Word Or Not God's Word The Islamic Dilemma")

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Is Belief In God A Virus?

        While the theistic worldview operates on the fundamental assumption that God exists, the atheistic mindset displays direct contrariety in that it interprets daily experiences to the exclusion of a supreme deity. Atheism maintains that mankind through the lens of the scientific laboratory alone is the final standard of authority for decision making in every aspect of life. One of the very fascinating, yet vitriolic, charges advanced by prominent atheistic thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitches is that religion is a mind virus.

        In other words, these people have argued that theism is a completely unnatural, destructive meme, which is a biological term for non-genetic trait sharing, that perverts our ability to formulate accurate perceptions in life. According to the logic of the anti-theist argument, this mental “virus” strives to invade the minds of healthy, rational secular individuals through brainwashing or indoctrination. This atheist quibble depicts religion as being a mental illness that has originated from vindictive causes. Therefore, participating in religion or teaching children religious concepts is viewed by these atheists as being absolutely perilous to the continued survival of society. In summary, the religion virus argument maintains that the proliferation of religious beliefs must be separated, if not terminated, from all spheres of human interaction, which encompasses education, economics, science, and politics.

        There are a number of different reasons for the atheistic animosity against the promotion of religious ideals in the world, which are beyond the scope of this paper. While some people want to use science as the means of discovering all the answers to the questions of life apart from belief in God, others simply do not want their views on moral issues to be condemned or governed by a superior, divine authority. Nonetheless, much more apparent and serious causes for the negative approaches to incorporating religion into daily facets of life have developed.

        People have either abandoned Christianity altogether or have utterly misunderstood the true character of the gospel because of hypocrisy among professing Christian leaders who are supposed to be acting in a godly manner, harsh treatment by Christians, and by the creation of religions that promote barbaric ways of life. These factors certainly should warrant the concern of Christians, but the claim that religion is a virus does indeed have several internal logical inconsistencies or angles of refutation. For example, philosophies such as Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism favored moral relativism and nihilism, yet provoked major horrors in the twentieth century. These were entirely secular worldviews. Is it therefore not ironic how secular people make the claim that religion is the cause of all evil?

        The underlying problem with the religion virus argument is that it completely distorts the true nature of Christianity, for this religion does not enforce ways that are contrary to principles of freedom, love, peace, and righteousness. These moral principles form the basis of the gospel message. In reality, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only tenable way of life because it is the only religion that truly brings lasting hope and fulfillment through conversion of heart. This can be said of no other worldview. The real problem with atheists is that their hearts have been hardened against God. Though individual members of professing Christian denominations may act in a corrupt manner, such behavior is contrary to gospel teaching. Afflicted individuals need to dig deeper into God's revelation to mankind for answers to the difficulties presented in life.

        Belief systems are evidences of people upholding particular sets of ideas. They may tend to be exclusive in nature. It is normal for parents to share their own worldview with children. It is also normal of belief systems to encourage practices to enhance faithfulness to that particular system of thought, which can include the continual introduction of ideas unique to that particular faith, having assemblies, or eating together with other members of that same belief-system. Furthermore, most belief-systems do encourage the promotion of a particular set of ideas. Sincere members of a particular belief-system evangelize outsiders about the teachings of their particular belief system because they believe that their worldview is correct, not because of an invasive pathogen that unwillfully perverts a normal thinking pattern. Otherwise, atheism also qualifies to be a "virus of the mind" because it shares the same common characteristics of religions in the sense of remaining faithful and individual atheists strive to propagate their own unique beliefs as truth. But religions consist of rituals, customs, and practices that are deliberately chosen, not influenced by an invasive pathogen that unwillfully perverts a normal thinking pattern.

        If the hypothesis that religion is a cruel, unnatural control mechanism that can only be brought about through acts of indoctrination is correct, then we should anticipate finding few adulthood conversions from atheism to Christianity. On the contrary, the test for religion being a mental virus has soundly refuted the proposed idea that religion is a mental virus because the presupposed conclusion is flatly contradicted by presented data. Atheism has been abandoned by several people as a result of people being convinced by the principles taught within Christianity (or even by other world religions). In fact, religious people are generally happier than secular individuals.

        The metaphorical portrayal of religion as being a virus is constructed on entirely pseudo-scientific premises. It has no rational or philosophical grounds to rely on, but rather is a form of emotional rhetoric. The religion virus argument is nothing more than an attempt to provide justification for rejecting God and His moral precepts. Such objections to the theistic worldview form as a result of a hatred of God and a poor understanding of the gospel. Consequently, Christians need to: 1.) Know the contents of their faith, 2.) Provide reasons for why they believe what they believe, 3.) Reveal true love for other people, and 4.) Examine personal conduct. The best thing that we can do for those who willfully disobey the commandments of God is to pray that the Holy Spirit softens the hearts of those who have hardened their hearts against Him. Though atheists have a valid point regarding the potential harm of man-made religions, there still exists a radical contrast between the one true religion and false world religions.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Can God Contradict Himself?

        The question being addressed is one that is pertinent to the character of God. It is about how He functions in relation to creation. Whether God is able to contradict Himself or not reveals to us His true nature. In fact, this question regarding God's consistency is a fundamental question that needs to be answered. This is especially true of new converts, those who lack faith in God, or for people who lack wisdom.

        If God is capable of contradicting Himself, then it follows that He is imperfect and liable to error. This would mean that He is no more distinguished from man. If God is not infinitely superior to creation in every way, then why should the pagans abandon their polytheistic worldviews and submit to Him? This hypothetical scenario would only prove Judeo-Christian tradition to be outright ludicrous, if it were true. It would demonstrate that our faith was built on a shaky foundation.

        First of all, it is vital to recognize that the Bible teaches that God cannot change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). In other words, His character is unalterable. He can act only in a manner that is consistent with His own nature. Scripture tells us that God is unable to sin (Numbers 23:19). Therefore, God is unable to contradict Himself. Does this fact mean that God is somehow not omnipotent and omniscient? Of course not.

        The fact that God cannot contradict Himself is not proof of limitation, but rather, expresses a degree of perfection. This degree of supernatural perfection is beyond the human perception of perfection. His qualities far exceed perfection, as He is beyond the scope of "all." The human mind cannot fully grasp the character of God because it is finite.

        We are unable to comprehend the fullness of His being and glory. God is perfect. God is infallible. His character is impeccable. He is truth. He is goodness. His ways are righteous. He can do anything that is consistent with His nature.

Friday, June 9, 2017

The Historical Development Of Papal Authority

  • Introduction:
          -The most primitive Christian churches were governed by a plurality of bishops, not by an individual head, as is the case with the modern Church of Rome. It is also important to note that the New Testament Scriptures use the terms "presbyter," "elder," and "bishop" interchangeably. The Papacy has not been established since the first century by Jesus Christ, but is instead a gradual development in later church history. 
  • Testimony From The Didache: 
          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (15.1)
  • Testimony From 1 Clement: 
          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (1 Clement 42:4)
  • The New American Bible Revised Edition Has This Commentary On Titus 1:5-9 On The Meaning Of The Terms Bishop And Presbyter:
          -"[1:5–9] This instruction on the selection and appointment of presbyters, substantially identical with that in 1 Tm 3:1–7 on a bishop (see note there), was aimed at strengthening the authority of Titus by apostolic mandate; cf. Ti 2:15. In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons."
  • Basic Presentation On The Historical Development Of The Roman Catholic Papacy: 
          -In 150 AD, a difference was made between the offices of elder and bishop. This is when individual congregations started being governed by individual bishops. One bishop began to have authority over the other bishops, like a senior pastor amongst elders. This development was gradual in other churches and is attested to by Ignatius' epistles as first appearing in Asia Minor. 
          -"Caird notes that in the latter half of the first century three events occurred that altered the character of the church: (1) the final break between Christianity and Judaism, (2) the beginning of persecution by Rome, and (3) the death of many who had been principal leaders in the early church. The death of the apostles, the crumbling of the old covenant, outbreaks of persecution, and the prevalence of heresy and false prophecy led to the rise of the monarchical bishop. Caird suggests that the vigor with which Ignatius states his case for the bishop’s role implies that this new development had been “vigorously opposed” by many in the churches. In any case, the rise of the monarchical bishop is best understood as the expedient by which the early church asserted its right to condemn divergent views in the absence of the apostles. Cf. Caird, The Apostolic Age, 141–55 (esp. pp. 141, 151-52)." (Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 21)
          -Archbishops, who presided over a group of churches along with their respective assemblies of worship, moved up from the most prominent cities of their time. These men came to be known as the patriarchs.
          -In the mid fifth and into the late sixth century, we see the five patriarchs, which were Jerusalem (officially recognized as such in the fifth century), Antioch (officially recognized as such in the first century), Rome (officially recognized as such in the first century), Constantinople (officially recognized as such in the fourth century), and Alexandria (officially recognized as such in the first century). Each patriarch governed itself. Though Rome and Constantinople were perceived as having equal authority, the Church of Rome was viewed in highest regard. Constantinople was the leading patriarch of the east. But neither of the two competing patriarchs at the time possessed universal authority over the rest of Christendom.
          -In the late sixth century leading into the seventh, there was a major, final struggle between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches for the title of Universal Bishop. In other words, the two most powerful patriarchs fought for jurisdiction over the entire Christian church. Although Constantinople was first to appoint its head as being the Universal Bishop of Christianity, the Roman Bishop Gregory condemned the usage of that title as being characteristic of an anti-Christ. He declared that no man, not even himself, was worthy of possessing such an title! In the end, the Church of Rome prevailed in this battle for supreme authority as Gregory's successor Boniface III reserved it for himself. The head of the Roman Catholic Church still wields this title of absolute power. Thus, we see the historic origin of the Papal office in its current organizational structure.
  • An Excerpt From Canon Six Of The Council Of Nicea (Cited By Philip Schaff):
          -"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them."

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Sin And Temptation

        Our consciences have been designed by God to sense the dangers of presently existing sinful temptations. He has inscribed His moral precepts into our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). In other words, God has programmed our minds to sense the presence of good and evil. Thus, our conscience is the underlying reason we instinctively feel as if temptation, by definition, is wrong. That assumes one's conscience has not been desensitized by sin. Everybody experiences temptations. Moreover, it is important for us to recognize that distinctions exist between sin and temptation. For instance, forgiveness is required for debts and trespasses, whereas temptation requires deliverance (Matthew 6:12-13). Jesus Christ was tempted in the same manner as we are, yet remained unblemished from the stains of sin (Hebrews 4:14-16). He was tested and shown to be faithful.

        Temptation can originate from one of two sources: Satan or our own inherent desire to entertain sinful ideas. While the devil is the ultimate source of all evil, our sinful nature works alongside him to ensnare our souls. The process of spiritual temptation begins with desire, blossoms into temptation which leads to sin, and can then lead up to spiritual death (James 1:14-15). Temptation becomes sin when we choose to act in accordance to our sinful desires, even if they take place in our minds where such desires are not made manifest. Christ was tempted externally, but not internally inclined to act sinfully. He does not have a sin nature.

        Worldly thoughts, which can include but are not limited to pride, lust, greed, and covetousness, come from within and defile us (Matthew 17:19). We need to flee from temptation because being in such a state revolves around sin. Evil thoughts are sin. Temptation makes us want to act contrary to the commandments of God. What sin and temptation have in common is that both can harm our relationship with Him.

        All people who die in a state of unbelief will end up eternally condemned in the lake of fire. What we need to do is replace the fruits of the flesh with the fruits of the Spirit. Despite the fact that overcoming temptation can refine our character, we need to do our best to avoid situations that will place us into a state of temptation (Romans 13:13-14). We need to distract ourselves from the sources of temptation by focusing on the promises of God. Only through Him can we have true and lasting joy, hope, peace, and fulfillment.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

The Biblical Teaching On Judgement

       While it is true that the Scriptures expressly forbid holding other people to standards that are hypocritical (Matthew 7:1-5), we still are under the obligation to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). In other words, we need to judge in a fair and morally consistent manner. Hence, theological liberals who misquote the words of Jesus Christ in regards to human judgment are wrong in their attempts to silence faithful Christians who confront them about their erroneous beliefs and practices. Good judgment forms the basis for sound ethics.

       The possession of hypocritical mentalities places people who fit into various categories of unrighteousness in no position to be casting judgment on other people because that would constitute a double-standard. If three robbers are guilty of stealing money from a bank, then how can they point their fingers at each other and claim personal innocence before a judge when all in the group are guilty? 

        If something is true, then it must be true for all people at all places and times. But if the act of judging in itself is intrinsically evil, then we must ask how judges can rightly convict criminals as a result of compiled evidence? Clearly, people can judge because they are in a rightful standing or position to do so. There are rightful times for us to judge. There are wrongful times for us to be judging. For example, we cannot make definitive pronouncements as to the salvation status of professing Christians because only God knows the hearts of men. There are situations in which judging has been excessively or prematurely done.

       This is a basic presentation on biblical teaching regarding judgment. There are proper applications of and conditions for judgment. The popular notion that it is morally wrong to judge is false. Hypocrisy is a sin. Arrogance is a sin. These are real issues that need to be addressed. Whenever people critique a given concept, they are rendering a judgement as to its validity.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Basic Notes On The Soul

  • A Description Of The Soul:
          -The soul is known as the "life-principle" of the being, that is, the immaterial entity that keeps the physical body alive. In other words, it is the non-physical source of all consciousness. The soul is the immaterial part of the body which forms the basis of human features encompassing our actions, thoughts, ideas, hopes, and dreams. The soul is what makes us who we are. It is the essence of our personalities. The soul exists independently of the physical body because it is immaterial. The soul is therefore a separate entity from the body (2 Corinthians 5:8).
  • General Recap And Further Elaboration Of Discussion On The Soul:
          -Human souls are breathed directly into our bodies by God (Genesis 2:8). This means that they constitute our spiritual identity. Only we are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This fact alone distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. 
          -The soul is an immaterial entity. It is non-physical. Thus the soul cannot be tested by the scientific method because science can only examine physical quantity. The soul transcends the physical realm. Scripture says that man has a pneuma or soul.
          -Because our souls are immaterial, it logically follows that our souls are immortal. Our souls will continue to live on for eternity, even after the moment of physical death. The very essence of our being will continue to thrive in the afterlife.
  • Two Basic Proofs For The Immateriality Of The Soul:
         -We can use our reasoning capacities to mentally categorize things into general categories, rather than only being able to reason with particular objects that we can physically see. The human mind is not limited only to the scope of concrete thinking.
         -Human beings are free in the sense that they have free will. We can either choose to make good or bad decisions in this life. Evidence that man has free will is the ability to be influenced or persuaded. The act of intending points to the immateriality of human consciousness. The soul cannot be verified empirically, but it clearly does exist.