Soul

[Youkilledkenny]

What is a soul?
Some say it's an energy of sorts but even animals (and some say plants) possess this energy. Does this mean every living thing has a soul? Or is the concept of the soul simply something that makes people feel superior to every thing else on the planet? Or, is it, (as some claim, like so many things 'Christian') simply a means of power and control over others - a piece of a larger puzzle so to speak?

Assuming a soul is real, how does the Christian concept of the soul clash (or meld) with other religions' concept of the soul?

Or is there no soul - no energy/inner self/spirit/etc. - and when you're dead, you're dead? Was the soul something people thought up to make the ease into nothingness (or the unknown) more palatable?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]

Again, I don't think you have quite grasped my point. Memory does not solve the problem of meaningfulness, because memory fades, much of the past is lost to memory and in memory. Hence, the solution requires more than a mere reference to memory.

I think all humans seek meaningfulness. To get out of bed in the morning asserts meaningfulness, by the way. I also believe that the system that creates the need also provides ways of satisfying the need. So yes, the fact we all seek meaningfulness means it does exist. We wouldn't have the concept in the first place if there is no meaningfulness. All our concepts are based in experience, as I explained in an earlier post. And I see no sense in living if it is all meaningless. Maybe you do. But I and many others definitely do not. What's the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? Yu have yet to address that.

The fact I said all things consist exclusively of souls is an essentially non-dualistic claim, about as much of one as you can get. So I don't see how you came up with the idea this is somehow claiming a mind-matter dualism.

If you agree that there is no hard-and-fist dividing line between the living and the nonliving, then logically you are claiming there is no point at which you can say there is no mind. When I spoke about going up and down the scale, I am referring to the fact that the lower we go, we still see what is at the top. We can solve problems. Moving down, so can dogs and ravens. However, they cannot do algebra, etc. We are altruistic and so, too, are bacteria, as you admit, though to a significantly lesser extent. We are experiencing entities, and so, too, are cells, though to a significantly lesser extent. So I see every reason why mind and psychological principles should not be extended down the scale.

[JehovahsWitness]

In the gif you use;



the imagery is suggesting that the soul is created through the combination of spirit with the form and the 'person' is thus created.

...when the body and spirit disengage, the body (which is represented as the yellow square) will now be green and the spirit (which is represented as the blue square) will remain blue.

Yes, that is exactly right; it is very encouraging to me when the point I am making is clearly understood. The spirit (the force which animates) continues to exist because, strictly speaking it "belongs to God who gave it". The body disintigrates to dust and the "person" (the indivdual with his or her thoughts, emotions, memory, personality, etc) which only exists as a combination of the two, no longer exists.

JW

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 21 by hoghead1]

OK, so far, I have been giving arguments for my side. It's only fair that you take a turn. You say there is passive, inert, dead matter. OK, fine. Where is your case for this? Evidence please?

So far, I find you position somewhat puzzling. You say there is no meaning to life. Then you say it is all motivated by survival of teh fittest. Well, that certainly gives life a meaning, direction, purpose. You say that matter is essentially passive, inert, dead. Then turn around and say this matter is at the basis, the very foundation, of the struggle for survival. Well, how can dead matter care to survive? Struggling to survive is an essentially mental concept. Dead matter would not care and so would not behave in ways that suggest it is seeking to survive.

[William]

In the gif you use;



the imagery is suggesting that the soul is created through the combination of spirit with the form and the 'person' is thus created.

...when the body and spirit disengage, the body (which is represented as the yellow square) will now be green and the spirit (which is represented as the blue square) will remain blue.

Yes, that is exactly right; it is very encouraging to me when the point I am making is clearly understood. The spirit (the force which animates) continues to exist because, strictly speaking it "belongs to God who gave it". The body disintigrates to dust and the "person" (the indivdual with his or her thoughts, emotions, memory, personality, etc) which only exists as a combination of the two, no longer exists.

JW

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

You quoted me out of context when you implied that I was agreeing with you. That is not a honest thing to do.

The soul is examined and rejected or accepted - deleted or saved - depending on the data stored in the soul. If the data is saved it means that the individual gets to keep it as part of the individuals personality and experience - effectively the individual gets to carry on experiencing their existence as that individual rather than being recycled back into the 'GOD-lake' and made into another spirit particle devoid of any awareness of prior existence. The person they were was deleted.

In the gif you use;



the imagery is suggesting that the soul is created through the combination of spirit with the form and the 'person' is thus created.

However, what is really happening is that the soul is an aspect of the spirit which is activated through the process of that amalgamation and what you are teaching/have been taught is that when the body and spirit disengage, the body (which is represented as the yellow square) will now be green and the spirit (which is represented as the blue square) will remain blue.

The gif in itself is a bit of a sleight of hand as it is being used as part of the argument about what happens after death but only presents what happens to activate life...quite sneaky.

You should maybe read what I said more carefully, and in context. Certainly you haven't made it clear why you think we agree and I made it clear that we don't and that a person (spirit) can forfeit their soul, but are not the soul. The form is not the person. It is just the vessel for the person to experience through.

I made many points which you have not addressed.

The spirit is GOD and thus the person is a particle of GOD. That is why Jesus (as do many enlightened individuals) understand that we are all 'Gods'.

The person doesn't 'disintegrate to dust'. That is because the spirit is eternal. What happens is the soul which holds the data of experience of that individuate spirit particle is wiped clean (blank slated) and no longer exists, depending solely on how the spirit behaved, and not according to the judgement of other persons.

The only reason GOD destroys the soul (deletes it from the spirit particle) is when the data of experience is not aligned with what GOD is.

The person (spirit) is not the soul, any more than they are the experience. The experience is what the person (spirit) has.

That is what 'losing ones soul' is about.

This does not automatically happen when the body dies either, as there are alternate states which can be accessed in relation to the individuate spirits experience, depending on the needs of that person. This allows for spirits which have not been able to fully have the opportunity to understand their experience in this universe in relation to GOD, to continue their journey. This is because of GODs loving-kindness towards those aspects of Itself which GOD wants to remain individuate persons but - for reasons GOD understands, did not have the opportunity to fully integrate with understanding what was involved due to any number of relevant and justifiable reasons.

It may be a small difference in understanding but it is important to understand that when Jesus said a soul can be forfeited he was not speaking about the individual spirit (the person) but about the data of that spirits experience, and that this is only done in extreme circumstances where evil has overridden the spirits knowledge of its connection with GOD and GODs goodness through its experience within this universe.

When you eventually part company with your present human form, you will immediately enter a new alternate reality - one which you are co-creator of.

[JehovahsWitness]

In the gif you use;



the imagery is suggesting that the soul is created through the combination of spirit with the form and the 'person' is thus created.

...when the body and spirit disengage, the body (which is represented as the yellow square) will now be green and the spirit (which is represented as the blue square) will remain blue.

Yes, that is exactly right; it is very encouraging to me when the point I am making is clearly understood. The spirit (the force which animates) continues to exist because, strictly speaking it "belongs to God who gave it". The body disintigrates to dust and the "person" (the indivdual with his or her thoughts, emotions, memory, personality, etc) which only exists as a combination of the two, no longer exists.

JW

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

You quoted me out of context when you implied that I was agreeing with you. That is not a honest thing to do..

I did not make any implication that you agreed or disagreed with the point only that you seemed to understand the point I was making. If I got the impression you understood but in fact you did not understand at all, feel free to say so, but you words implied you did mentally grasp the point I was making and the idea being conveyed by the image.

You might consider being a little more careful of accusing another poster of dishonesty in future lest it be taken as discourtesy.



JW

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

I did not make any implication that you agreed or disagreed with the point only that you seemed to understand the point I was making

I made it quite clear that I understood that you are mistaken in your beliefs that there is nothing in the bible to suggest that the soul (a person, made out of flesh and blood and "animated" by the power or spirit from GOD as you described) is immortal or survives the death of the body.

I pointed out where Jesus said that a person can forfeit the soul, and that the spirit was not something which animates the body, but is the very thing which is the person. The soul is the data of experience related to that person/spirit-particle.

Therefore, if a person (individuate spirit particle) can live forever as that person, then yes, the soul can exist forever as well.

Quoting someone out of context and then commenting on that whilst ignoring the main points of their post is not honest, and quite discourteous/disrespectful. You should appreciate that some time and effort has been made to reply to you, and I expect those who claim they are followers of Jesus to be the shining example of honesty.

If you were standing at my door and behaving as such, I would not consider asking you to be honest and quote me in context, as my being discourteous.

If you believe that I am on the same page as you are with this, then the least you should be able to do is to make the effort to point out why that is the case. I don't think it is, have explained why and you have not offered anything in the way of showing it is the case.

What you did comes off as looking like an ego-based response much like looking down one's nose at someone one considers to being beneath one. Disingenuous even.

So - to be clear. I understand what you are claiming and I understand it is incorrect and have said why I think this is the case. Rather than ignore that, perhaps you might find the time to make the effort to actually answer me on that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What is a soul?

Something them black folk have 'em a bunch of it, where us white folks it is, we have us us one of it, only it ain't so such developed. Rampant racism to prove a point, for it is, I've got me James Brown's discography!

Some say it's an energy of sorts but even animals (and some say plants) possess this energy. Does this mean every living thing has a soul?

No.

Gingers.

Rampant colorism to prove a point.

Or is the concept of the soul simply something that makes people feel superior to every thing else on the planet?

I say naw. I think for the most of 'em, they's just tryin' to sort their lot in here all this of it.

Or, is it, (as some claim, like so many things 'Christian') simply a means of power and control over others - a piece of a larger puzzle so to speak?

Yeah, I think a good bunch of religious folks speak of "souls" to imply or declare that if I don't think the same of it it is that they do, well i'm fixing to be slathered in me some Moore's sauce. I reject such claims, based on the inablity of the claimant to show they speak truth, and how it is I ain't me no chicken, I'm just scared of upsettin' me that pretty thing.

Assuming a soul is real, how does the Christian concept of the soul clash (or meld) with other religions' concept of the soul?

Easily.

Or is there no soul - no energy/inner self/spirit/etc. - and when you're dead, you're dead? Was the soul something people thought up to make the ease into nothingness (or the unknown) more palatable?

Data suggests you're on it here.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

I did not make any implication that you agreed or disagreed with the point only that you seemed to understand the point I was making

So - to be clear. I understand what you are claiming ...

Good. Then we agree, I said I was happy you understood the point I was making and you are here confirming that I was correct to conclude you understood the point I was making.

JW

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

I did not make any implication that you agreed or disagreed with the point only that you seemed to understand the point I was making

So - to be clear. I understand what you are claiming ...

Good. Then we agree,...{snipped out of context, irrelevant comment}

So - to be clear. I understand what you are claiming and I understand it is incorrect and have said why I think this is the case. Rather than ignore that, perhaps you might find the time to make the effort to actually answer me on that.

[JehovahsWitness]

So - to be clear. I understand what you are claiming {snipped out of context, irrelevant comment}

Good, then I hope we have resolved any issues of misunderstanding. I simply expressed my contentment that I had apparently communicated well enough to be understood and that the image (not of my design I might add) communicated the point I was making adequately.

Have a most excellent day,

JW