Do You Believe We Have A Soul? (Poll)

I'm guessing the majority are obviously going to go with no, but lets see.

Please vote. :D

In the Neo-Platonic sense? Not really.

My definition of the soul is an ontological infiniteness able to transcend this material reality (The physical universe) in order to commune with God ("Who" both is and transcends said material reality). By being able to transcend this reality, it is able to transcend non-being (death) and find the ultimate source, ground, etc. of Being (Which, again, is God).

In the Neo-Platonic sense? Not really.

My definition of the soul is an ontological infiniteness able to transcend this material reality (The physical universe) in order to commune with God ("Who" both is and transcends said material reality). By being able to transcend this reality, it is able to transcend non-being (death) and find the ultimate source, ground, etc. of Being (Which, again, is God).

STWELCH

OK. Next question. Do you believe the soul, and the spirit are the same thing?

[QUOTE="STWELCH"]

In the Neo-Platonic sense? Not really.

My definition of the soul is an ontological infiniteness able to transcend this material reality (The physical universe) in order to commune with God ("Who" both is and transcends said material reality). By being able to transcend this reality, it is able to transcend non-being (death) and find the ultimate source, ground, etc. of Being (Which, again, is God).

Lansdowne5

OK. Next question. Do you believe the soul, and the spirit are the same thing?

No.

No. Just as man throughout history has created deities as anthropomorphized explanations for natural phenomena, so has he imagined the soul/spirit to justify his own life, movement and consciousness, and the afterlife out of fear and denial of his own mortality. There has not been a single objective discovery in history to suggest that sentience is anything more than the continual process of stimuli, memory, temperament, reasoning, etc., all of which is housed in and governed by the brain. Conclusion courtesy of Occam's Razor.

No offense to you, ofcourse, lansdowne. However, since we're on the subject, I actually have an old set of questions I've prepared for people who do believe in extra-corporeal existence, and I'm curious to see what your thoughts are in this regard:

1. Do you believe non-human animals have souls/spirits?

2. At what point in a person's life, from conception onward, do you believe their soul/spirit is created/acquired?

3. Hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like if they were born without a soul/spirit, or if their soul/spirit were to leave their body while they were still alive?

4. Similarly, what would happen if a person's soul/spirit remained in, or returned to their body after they died?

5. Since identical twins are not formed as separate individuals until the zygote splits after conception, how is the second soul/spirit acquired? Do they share the same soul/spirit, two identical copies of the same one, is an entirely one "sent in" after the split?

6. Generally speaking, what mental and physical functions, or things such as personality traits and memory storage do you believe are governed by the soul/spirit as opposed to the brain?

7. Medical science has seen that a person's personality/temperament can drastically and permanently altered by drugs, or condition such as head trauma, coma, etc.. How does the soul/spirit play into this?

No. Just as man throughout history has created deities as anthropomorphized explanations for natural phenomena, so has he imagined the soul/spirit to justify his own life, movement and consciousness, and the afterlife out of fear and denial of his own mortality. There has not been a single objective discovery in history to suggest that sentience is anything more than the continual process of stimuli, memory, temperament, reasoning, etc., all of which is housed in and governed by the brain. Conclusion courtesy of Occam's Razor.

No offense to you, ofcourse, lansdowne. However, since we're on the subject, I actually have an old set of questions I've prepared for people who do believe in extra-corporeal existence, and I'm curious to see what your thoughts are in this regard:

1. Do you believe non-human animals have souls/spirits?

2. At what point in a person's life, from conception onward, do you believe their soul/spirit is created/acquired?

3. Hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like if they were born without a soul/spirit, or if their soul/spirit were to leave their body while they were still alive?

4. Similarly, what would happen if a person's soul/spirit remained in, or returned to their body after they died?

5. Since identical twins are not formed as separate individuals until the zygote splits after conception, how is the second soul/spirit acquired? Do they share the same soul/spirit, two identical copies of the same one, is an entirely one "sent in" after the split?

6. Generally speaking, what mental and physical functions, or things such as personality traits and memory storage do you believe are governed by the soul/spirit as opposed to the brain?

7. Medical science has seen that a person's personality/temperament can drastically and permanently altered by drugs, or condition such as head trauma, coma, etc.. How does the soul/spirit play into this?

creepy_mike

Interesting.

1. No. They do not have a soul or a spirit. And they will never see Heaven nor Hell below.

2. Conception.

3. They'd be the same as an animal and could feel no emotion. They would also never be able to have a relationship with God.

4. I don't know. But what I do know is that if we've given our lives to Christ, when we die we will be in his presence.

5. When they became two separate bodies.

6. Emotions, choice, conscious decisions, free will etc.

7. A person's personality is not his soul.

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"]

No. Just as man throughout history has created deities as anthropomorphized explanations for natural phenomena, so has he imagined the soul/spirit to justify his own life, movement and consciousness, and the afterlife out of fear and denial of his own mortality. There has not been a single objective discovery in history to suggest that sentience is anything more than the continual process of stimuli, memory, temperament, reasoning, etc., all of which is housed in and governed by the brain. Conclusion courtesy of Occam's Razor.

No offense to you, ofcourse, lansdowne. However, since we're on the subject, I actually have an old set of questions I've prepared for people who do believe in extra-corporeal existence, and I'm curious to see what your thoughts are in this regard:

1. Do you believe non-human animals have souls/spirits?

2. At what point in a person's life, from conception onward, do you believe their soul/spirit is created/acquired?

3. Hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like if they were born without a soul/spirit, or if their soul/spirit were to leave their body while they were still alive?

4. Similarly, what would happen if a person's soul/spirit remained in, or returned to their body after they died?

5. Since identical twins are not formed as separate individuals until the zygote splits after conception, how is the second soul/spirit acquired? Do they share the same soul/spirit, two identical copies of the same one, is an entirely one "sent in" after the split?

6. Generally speaking, what mental and physical functions, or things such as personality traits and memory storage do you believe are governed by the soul/spirit as opposed to the brain?

7. Medical science has seen that a person's personality/temperament can drastically and permanently altered by drugs, or condition such as head trauma, coma, etc.. How does the soul/spirit play into this?

Lansdowne5

Interesting.

1. No. They do not have a soul or a spirit. And they will never see Heaven nor Hell below.

2. Conception.

3. They'd be the same as an animal and could feel no emotion. They would also never be able to have a relationship with God.

4. I don't know. But what I do know is that if we've given our lives to Christ, when we die we will be in his presence.

5. When they became two separate bodies.

6. Emotions, choice, conscious decisions, free will etc.

7. A person's personality is not his soul.

1. Not even Homo Erectus?

3. A dog can easily be observed as having a unique character and emotions. I must conclude that you have never personally kept a dog.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="creepy_mike"]

No. Just as man throughout history has created deities as anthropomorphized explanations for natural phenomena, so has he imagined the soul/spirit to justify his own life, movement and consciousness, and the afterlife out of fear and denial of his own mortality. There has not been a single objective discovery in history to suggest that sentience is anything more than the continual process of stimuli, memory, temperament, reasoning, etc., all of which is housed in and governed by the brain. Conclusion courtesy of Occam's Razor.

No offense to you, ofcourse, lansdowne. However, since we're on the subject, I actually have an old set of questions I've prepared for people who do believe in extra-corporeal existence, and I'm curious to see what your thoughts are in this regard:

1. Do you believe non-human animals have souls/spirits?

2. At what point in a person's life, from conception onward, do you believe their soul/spirit is created/acquired?

3. Hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like if they were born without a soul/spirit, or if their soul/spirit were to leave their body while they were still alive?

4. Similarly, what would happen if a person's soul/spirit remained in, or returned to their body after they died?

5. Since identical twins are not formed as separate individuals until the zygote splits after conception, how is the second soul/spirit acquired? Do they share the same soul/spirit, two identical copies of the same one, is an entirely one "sent in" after the split?

6. Generally speaking, what mental and physical functions, or things such as personality traits and memory storage do you believe are governed by the soul/spirit as opposed to the brain?

7. Medical science has seen that a person's personality/temperament can drastically and permanently altered by drugs, or condition such as head trauma, coma, etc.. How does the soul/spirit play into this?

Junkie_man

Interesting.

1. No. They do not have a soul or a spirit. And they will never see Heaven nor Hell below.

2. Conception.

3. They'd be the same as an animal and could feel no emotion. They would also never be able to have a relationship with God.

4. I don't know. But what I do know is that if we've given our lives to Christ, when we die we will be in his presence.

5. When they became two separate bodies.

6. Emotions, choice, conscious decisions, free will etc.

7. A person's personality is not his soul.

1. Not even Homo Erectus?

3. A dog can easily be observed as having a unique character and emotions. I must conclude that you have never personally kept a dog.

1. Hypothetically speaking, they don't exist anymore. Literally speaking, they never did.

3. Lol. Fourteen years ago we had 16 dogs, since then we've had 4 dogs and then last year we got another 1. I think we must conclude that I have indeed personally kept a dog. Anyway, they have a unique consciousness which is very different from having a soul.

1. Hypothetically speaking, they don't exist anymore. Literally speaking, they never did.

3. Lol. Fourteen years ago we had 16 dogs, since then we've had 4 dogs and then last year we got another 1. I think we must conclude that I have indeed personally kept a dog. Anyway, they have a unique consciousness which is very different from having a soul.

Lansdowne5

1. So what if they're extinct now? Why does that make the question irrelevent?

3. Fair enough. That distinction wasn't clear from the post I quoted and I apologise.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by soul. In the non-corporeal sense no, in most other senses probably no as well.

I've never taken kindly to dualism and the afterlife though so I guess my answer is a little uninteresting.

Nope.

You don't have a soul; you are a soul. You have a body.

[spoiler] Proudly stolen from C.S. Lewis. :D [/spoiler]

If a soul is consciousness, sure. Any other definition I say no. SimpJee

This is how I would put it. A "soul" is nothing more than consciousness or a heightened sense of reality.

I'm not so sure if we have souls. I want to believe that we have souls, out of wishful thinking for when I die. If we do have souls, I think they're synonymous with our consciousnesses.

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"]

1. Do you believe non-human animals have souls/spirits?

2. At what point in a person's life, from conception onward, do you believe their soul/spirit is created/acquired?

3. Hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like if they were born without a soul/spirit, or if their soul/spirit were to leave their body while they were still alive?

4. Similarly, what would happen if a person's soul/spirit remained in, or returned to their body after they died?

5. Since identical twins are not formed as separate individuals until the zygote splits after conception, how is the second soul/spirit acquired? Do they share the same soul/spirit, two identical copies of the same one, is an entirely one "sent in" after the split?

6. Generally speaking, what mental and physical functions, or things such as personality traits and memory storage do you believe are governed by the soul/spirit as opposed to the brain?

7. Medical science has seen that a person's personality/temperament can drastically and permanently altered by drugs, or condition such as head trauma, coma, etc.. How does the soul/spirit play into this?

Lansdowne5

1. No. They do not have a soul or a spirit. And they will never see Heaven nor Hell below.

2. Conception.

3. They'd be the same as an animal and could feel no emotion. They would also never be able to have a relationship with God.

4. I don't know. But what I do know is that if we've given our lives to Christ, when we die we will be in his presence.

5. When they became two separate bodies.

6. Emotions, choice, conscious decisions, free will etc.

7. A person's personality is not his soul.

1. Was there a clear moment in our phylogenitic history that souls where inserted into our bodies?

2. Since so many (I want to say a majority but don't feel comfortable with that terminology without looking it up first) of fetrilized eggs are passed from the woman naturally without resulting in the growth of an actual baby, are all those many souls directly routed to heaven or hell? Do souls enter an egg on a petri dish?

3. Animals very clearly show signs of emotion. On most any nature show or at any zoo you can see evidence of this. Jealousy due to sexual betrayal, sadness, willingness to sacrifice self for a loved one, happiness, fear, anger, there is really a wide gambit of emotions in animals.

There is a certain breed of ape spoken about in Dennet's Consciousness Explained which was confounding anthropologist with a bizarre ritual that they couldn't explain. These apes routinely gather together and undergo very deep and rapid breathing patterns with audible manifestations. Some do this to the point of disorientation. No one could come up with a realistic explanation of why these apes were spending their energy in this seemingly uneconomic manor. It was finally determined quite obviously what was happening; the apes are laughing. Once scientists realized this effect on social bonding it was very clear in evolutionary terms why they were doing it.

5. What happens during the reverse process? Instead of one egg splitting to make identical twins, what happens when two fertilized eggs combine to make one chimera? Admittedly this is pretty rare for humans but there are several medically documented cases of it happening. Is one of the souls destroyed?

6. Well as stated earlier I think it is pretty clear some animals do have emotions. I think it is obvious they also make choices and depending on your definition of consciousness, they do this as well. All these things can be traced back to and altered by altering the brain. Free will however is a more philosophical "theory" not really grounded in anything I can tangibly discuss here.

7. But isn't a personality those things you said a soul was in the last question? How a person behaves emotionally, the decisions they make? I don't see a lot of difference.

Since I had to edit for spelling anyway I just thought i would add that if I had to live forever, I truly hope I wouldn't have to put up with my own emotions or inferior decision making process. These things seem so petty and unbecoming of something condemned to live forever. The wavelike transitions of genetic and social phases of life are the only things that I could think of keeping it tolerable for any real period of time.

No, the concept of the "soul" is fiction, generated in the past as a way for religious promoters and zealots to justify certain people's behaviour. As there was no proof that our "selves" were sent off to the fictional realms of "heaven" or "hell", or anything in between, they created something. A soul is an unseen, transcendant phenomena, a representitive of us in areas past our material realm. A great deal of value was attatched to the "soul" as it was our representitive to the gods, angels, etc.

However, I do applaud the religious recuiters of the past for engineering such a whimsical, even poetic pieces of fiction for their followers.

No, the concept of the "soul" is fiction, generated in the past as a way for religious promoters and zealots to justify certain people's behaviour. As there was no proof that our "selves" were sent off to the fictional realms of "heaven" or "hell", or anything in between, they created something. A soul is an unseen, transcendant phenomena, a representitive of us in areas past our material realm. A great deal of value was attatched to the "soul" as it was our representitive to the gods, angels, etc.

However, I do applaud the religious recuiters of the past for engineering such a whimsical, even poetic pieces of fiction for their followers.

Stryder1212

No, you're getting mixed up with the 'spirit'. 

[QUOTE="Stryder1212"]

No, the concept of the "soul" is fiction, generated in the past as a way for religious promoters and zealots to justify certain people's behaviour. As there was no proof that our "selves" were sent off to the fictional realms of "heaven" or "hell", or anything in between, they created something. A soul is an unseen, transcendant phenomena, a representitive of us in areas past our material realm. A great deal of value was attatched to the "soul" as it was our representitive to the gods, angels, etc.

However, I do applaud the religious recuiters of the past for engineering such a whimsical, even poetic pieces of fiction for their followers.

Lansdowne5

No, you're getting mixed up with the 'spirit'. 

Would you mind explaining the distinction to me? I'm curious.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Stryder1212"]

No, the concept of the "soul" is fiction, generated in the past as a way for religious promoters and zealots to justify certain people's behaviour. As there was no proof that our "selves" were sent off to the fictional realms of "heaven" or "hell", or anything in between, they created something. A soul is an unseen, transcendant phenomena, a representitive of us in areas past our material realm. A great deal of value was attatched to the "soul" as it was our representitive to the gods, angels, etc.

However, I do applaud the religious recuiters of the past for engineering such a whimsical, even poetic pieces of fiction for their followers.

domatron23

No, you're getting mixed up with the 'spirit'. 

Would you mind explaining the distinction to me? I'm curious.

"What is the difference between the spirit and the soul? The word spirit refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a spirit. However, in Scripture only believers, those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are said to be "spiritually alive" (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26). Unbelievers are "spiritually dead" (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing the "spirit" was pivotal to the spiritual life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; 15:45; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word spirit is used, it refers to the immaterial part of man including his soul. 

The word soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part. Unlike man having a "spirit," man is a soul. In its most basic sense, the word soul means "life." However, the Bible moves beyond "life" and into many areas. One of those areas is to man's eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Man is naturally evil, and his soul is tainted as a result. The life principle is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The "soul," as with the "spirit," is the centre of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5; Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word soul is used, it can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.

The "soul" and the "spirit" are similar in the manner in which they are used in the spiritual life of the believer. They are different in their reference. The "soul" is man's horizontal view with the world. The "spirit" is man's vertical view with God. It is important to understand that both refer to the immaterial part of man, but only the "spirit" refers to man's walk with God. The "soul" refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Would you mind explaining the distinction to me? I'm curious.

Lansdowne5

"What is the difference between the spirit and the soul? The word spirit refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a spirit. However, in Scripture only believers, those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are said to be "spiritually alive" (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26). Unbelievers are "spiritually dead" (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing the "spirit" was pivotal to the spiritual life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; 15:45; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word spirit is used, it refers to the immaterial part of man including his soul. 

The word soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part. Unlike man having a "spirit," man is a soul. In its most basic sense, the word soul means "life." However, the Bible moves beyond "life" and into many areas. One of those areas is to man's eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Man is naturally evil, and his soul is tainted as a result. The life principle is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The "soul," as with the "spirit," is the centre of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5; Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word soul is used, it can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.

The "soul" and the "spirit" are similar in the manner in which they are used in the spiritual life of the believer. They are different in their reference. The "soul" is man's horizontal view with the world. The "spirit" is man's vertical view with God. It is important to understand that both refer to the immaterial part of man, but only the "spirit" refers to man's walk with God. The "soul" refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

So we are a soul but we can also have a spirit. Okay that makes sense, cheers.

Lansdowne5 I was fairly disappointed at getting no response to your numbered points of interest.  Do you not have one? Sitri_

Sorry I didn't see you'd posted one. I'll have a look.  

1. Was there a clear moment in our phylogenitic history that souls where inserted into our bodies?

2. Since so many (I want to say a majority but don't feel comfortable with that terminology without looking it up first) of fetrilized eggs are passed from the woman naturally without resulting in the growth of an actual baby, are all those many souls directly routed to heaven or hell? Do souls enter an egg on a petri dish?

3. Animals very clearly show signs of emotion. On most any nature show or at any zoo you can see evidence of this. Jealousy due to sexual betrayal, sadness, willingness to sacrifice self for a loved one, happiness, fear, anger, there is really a wide gambit of emotions in animals.

There is a certain breed of ape spoken about in Dennet's Consciousness Explained which was confounding anthropologist with a bizarre ritual that they couldn't explain. These apes routinely gather together and undergo very deep and rapid breathing patterns with audible manifestations. Some do this to the point of disorientation. No one could come up with a realistic explanation of why these apes were spending their energy in this seemingly uneconomic manor. It was finally determined quite obviously what was happening; the apes are laughing. Once scientists realized this effect on social bonding it was very clear in evolutionary terms why they were doing it.

5. What happens during the reverse process? Instead of one egg splitting to make identical twins, what happens when two fertilized eggs combine to make one chimera? Admittedly this is pretty rare for humans but there are several medically documented cases of it happening. Is one of the souls destroyed?

6. Well as stated earlier I think it is pretty clear some animals do have emotions. I think it is obvious they also make choices and depending on your definition of consciousness, they do this as well. All these things can be traced back to and altered by altering the brain. Free will however is a more philosophical "theory" not really grounded in anything I can tangibly discuss here.

7. But isn't a personality those things you said a soul was in the last question? How a person behaves emotionally, the decisions they make? I don't see a lot of difference.

 

Since I had to edit for spelling anyway I just thought i would add that if I had to live forever, I truly hope I wouldn't have to put up with my own emotions or inferior decision making process. These things seem so petty and unbecoming of something condemned to live forever. The wavelike transitions of genetic and social phases of life are the only things that I could think of keeping it tolerable for any real period of time.

Sitri_

1. The Bible doesn't teach Evolution. This is what really happened: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

2. Anyone who rejects Christ and does not repent will go to Hell when they face judgement. However, when speaking of infants, God says they "have no knowledge of good or evil…" God's reason for punishing the people of Israel was for their wilful rebellion against him, but he does not hold the infants or young children accountable because they do not know any better. So therefore, if they can not be held accountable, they cannot be judged and therefore cannot therefore not be punished. In regards to the exact point 'when' we first become a soul, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that God knows us while we are in our mother's womb - " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 

3. No, they have a consciousness. They don't have a spirit, and therefore neither do they have a soul or free will.

4. NA.

5. I'm not 100% sure we become a soul at conception, but what I do know is that it is definitely while we are in the mother's womb.

6. They don't have emotions like we do. Maybe an instinctive choice, but not necessarily a conscious decision (which would indicate they had free will). 

7. Sorry. I was getting mixed up between a soul and the spirit.  

"What is the difference between the spirit and the soul? The word spirit refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a spirit. However, in Scripture only believers, those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are said to be "spiritually alive" (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26). Unbelievers are "spiritually dead" (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing the "spirit" was pivotal to the spiritual life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; 15:45; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word spirit is used, it refers to the immaterial part of man including his soul. 

The word soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part. Unlike man having a "spirit," man is a soul. In its most basic sense, the word soul means "life." However, the Bible moves beyond "life" and into many areas. One of those areas is to man's eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Man is naturally evil, and his soul is tainted as a result. The life principle is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The "soul," as with the "spirit," is the centre of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5; Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word soul is used, it can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.

The "soul" and the "spirit" are similar in the manner in which they are used in the spiritual life of the believer. They are different in their reference. The "soul" is man's horizontal view with the world. The "spirit" is man's vertical view with God. It is important to understand that both refer to the immaterial part of man, but only the "spirit" refers to man's walk with God. The "soul" refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

Lansdowne5

So, (according to the passage) unbelievers who are concidered "spiritually dead" should logically be unable to experience some emotions?

If so, then name some.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

"What is the difference between the spirit and the soul? The word spirit refers only to the immaterial facet of man. Mankind has a spirit, but we are not a spirit. However, in Scripture only believers, those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are said to be "spiritually alive" (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26). Unbelievers are "spiritually dead" (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing the "spirit" was pivotal to the spiritual life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; 15:45; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in man which gives him the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word spirit is used, it refers to the immaterial part of man including his soul. 

The word soul refers not only to the immaterial part of man but the also material part. Unlike man having a "spirit," man is a soul. In its most basic sense, the word soul means "life." However, the Bible moves beyond "life" and into many areas. One of those areas is to man's eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Man is naturally evil, and his soul is tainted as a result. The life principle is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The "soul," as with the "spirit," is the centre of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5; Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word soul is used, it can refer to the whole person, alive or after death.

The "soul" and the "spirit" are similar in the manner in which they are used in the spiritual life of the believer. They are different in their reference. The "soul" is man's horizontal view with the world. The "spirit" is man's vertical view with God. It is important to understand that both refer to the immaterial part of man, but only the "spirit" refers to man's walk with God. The "soul" refers to man's walk in the world, both material and immaterial."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

7guns

So, (according to the passage) unbelievers who are concidered "spiritually dead" should logically be unable to experience some emotions?

If so, then name some.

Most likely feelings of faith and religious fervour.

1. The Bible doesn't teach Evolution. This is what really happened: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

2. Anyone who rejects Christ and does not repent will go to Hell when they face judgement. However, when speaking of infants, God says they "have no knowledge of good or evil…" God's reason for punishing the people of Israel was for their wilful rebellion against him, but he does not hold the infants or young children accountable because they do not know any better. So therefore, if they can not be held accountable, they cannot be judged and therefore cannot therefore not be punished. In regards to the exact point 'when' we first become a soul, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that God knows us while we are in our mother's womb - " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 

3. No, they have a consciousness. They don't have a spirit, and therefore neither do they have a soul or free will.

4. NA.

5. I'm not 100% sure we become a soul at conception, but what I do know is that it is definitely while we are in the mother's womb.

6. They don't have emotions like we do. Maybe an instinctive choice, but not necessarily a conscious decision (which would indicate they had free will). 

7. Sorry. I was getting mixed up between a soul and the spirit.  

 

Lansdowne5

1.  It is getting infinitely harder to defend creationism with the advances of modern science.  Intelligent Design has taken on such popularity because many people wanting to retain most of their christian paradigms cannot simply ignore all the irrefutable evidence for evolution.  Many studious religious authorities, including those as high as the rank of pope, have recognized evolution as a fact.

2.  I am familiar with the Age of Accountability dogma.  But if one were to accept it as true, wouldn't the the most loving thing you could do for a child or souled fetus be to kill it?  To let it bypass all the pain and misery of this test on earth and get the sure ticket to paradise sounds pretty altruistic to me.

5.  I like the unsure portion of the answer a bit better; it is certainty about things we can't possibly know that causes a lot of social distress.

6.  There is a quite well developed school of thought which says our instincts and learned behavior dictate our decisions just like any other animal, our brains are just more advanced in the process.

7.  I guess I am still unsure what part of yourself is retained when the soul leaves the body.  So much of the phenomenological self can be altered by altering the physical self.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

1. The Bible doesn't teach Evolution. This is what really happened: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

2. Anyone who rejects Christ and does not repent will go to Hell when they face judgement. However, when speaking of infants, God says they "have no knowledge of good or evil…" God's reason for punishing the people of Israel was for their wilful rebellion against him, but he does not hold the infants or young children accountable because they do not know any better. So therefore, if they can not be held accountable, they cannot be judged and therefore cannot therefore not be punished. In regards to the exact point 'when' we first become a soul, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that God knows us while we are in our mother's womb - " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 

3. No, they have a consciousness. They don't have a spirit, and therefore neither do they have a soul or free will.

4. NA.

5. I'm not 100% sure we become a soul at conception, but what I do know is that it is definitely while we are in the mother's womb.

6. They don't have emotions like we do. Maybe an instinctive choice, but not necessarily a conscious decision (which would indicate they had free will). 

7. Sorry. I was getting mixed up between a soul and the spirit.  

 

Sitri_

1.  It is getting infinitely harder to defend creationism with the advances of modern science.  Intelligent Design has taken on such popularity because many people wanting to retain most of their christian paradigms cannot simply ignore all the irrefutable evidence for evolution.  Many studious religious authorities, including those as high as the rank of pope, have recognized evolution as a fact.

2.  I am familiar with the Age of Accountability dogma.  But if one were to accept it as true, wouldn't the the most loving thing you could do for a child or souled fetus be to kill it?  To let it bypass all the pain and misery of this test on earth and get the sure ticket to paradise sounds pretty altruistic to me.

5.  I like the unsure portion of the answer a bit better; it is certainty about things we can't possibly know that causes a lot of social distress.

6.  There is a quite well developed school of thought which says our instincts and learned behavior dictate our decisions just like any other animal, our brains are just more advanced in the process.

7.  I guess I am still unsure what part of yourself is retained when the soul leaves the body.  So much of the phenomenological self can be altered by altering the physical self.

1. To quote from Ephesians 6:16 - "Take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." 

Shield of faith = Faith in the Living God and his Holy Word.

Flaming Arrows = Attacks on the faith, such as by Evolution.

And the Pope doesn't hold true to Scripture, he holds true to Catholic tradition and the words of fallen Man. 

2. Murder, as I'm sure you are aware, is a Sin. But regardless of that, you would also be taking away their chance to experience the wonders of this World, to follow God throughout it and find Salvation through Christ.

3. NA.

4. NA.

5. Scripture tells us everything we 'need' to know. Questions like that are purely trivial.

6. I think the conscious decision making is side tracking us a bit. One question, do animals know right from wrong?

7. The 'soul' never leaves the body, I worded the original question quite awkwardly, sorry about that. The spirit, is the eternal part of us which leaves the body. 

 

1. The Bible doesn't teach Evolution. This is what really happened: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

2. Anyone who rejects Christ and does not repent will go to Hell when they face judgement. However, when speaking of infants, God says they "have no knowledge of good or evil…" God's reason for punishing the people of Israel was for their wilful rebellion against him, but he does not hold the infants or young children accountable because they do not know any better. So therefore, if they can not be held accountable, they cannot be judged and therefore cannot therefore not be punished. In regards to the exact point 'when' we first become a soul, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that God knows us while we are in our mother's womb - " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 

3. No, they have a consciousness. They don't have a spirit, and therefore neither do they have a soul or free will.

4. NA.

5. I'm not 100% sure we become a soul at conception, but what I do know is that it is definitely while we are in the mother's womb.

6. They don't have emotions like we do. Maybe an instinctive choice, but not necessarily a conscious decision (which would indicate they had free will). 

7. Sorry. I was getting mixed up between a soul and the spirit.  

 

Lansdowne5

1. Okay sure, whatever you say. :roll:

2. Again the old 'if you're not a Christian you will go to hell'. What about people before Christianity and Jesus even existed? What about the billions of decent good people who are not Christians? Are they condemmed to suffering forever because they have a different religion? If so how exactly is God nice and loving.

And God seems to have no whims about killing children

 1 Sameul 15:3 "Now go and attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants.

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh.  And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place.  Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

1. The Bible doesn't teach Evolution. This is what really happened: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

2. Anyone who rejects Christ and does not repent will go to Hell when they face judgement. However, when speaking of infants, God says they "have no knowledge of good or evil…" God's reason for punishing the people of Israel was for their wilful rebellion against him, but he does not hold the infants or young children accountable because they do not know any better. So therefore, if they can not be held accountable, they cannot be judged and therefore cannot therefore not be punished. In regards to the exact point 'when' we first become a soul, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that God knows us while we are in our mother's womb - " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 

3. No, they have a consciousness. They don't have a spirit, and therefore neither do they have a soul or free will.

4. NA.

5. I'm not 100% sure we become a soul at conception, but what I do know is that it is definitely while we are in the mother's womb.

6. They don't have emotions like we do. Maybe an instinctive choice, but not necessarily a conscious decision (which would indicate they had free will). 

7. Sorry. I was getting mixed up between a soul and the spirit.  

 

felixlynch777

1. Okay sure, whatever you say. :roll:

2. Again the old 'if you're not a Christian you will go to hell'. What about people before Christianity and Jesus even existed? What about the billions of decent good people who are not Christians? Are they condemmed to suffering forever because they have a different religion? If so how exactly is God nice and loving.

And God seems to have no whims about killing children

 1 Sameul 15:3 "Now go and attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants.

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh.  And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place.  Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action? 

1. I'm glad we agree. :)

2. What do you want me to say? "Oh don't worry. God's a pushover. Do whatever you want." ;)

Firstly, why do you think that all people before Jesus weren't saved? Secondly, if they're not a Christian, you can't possibly classify them as being "a good person", maybe by society's moral standards, but not by God's. Read my post on the other topic and you'll see just what a Loving and Kind god God is.

In regards to those verses you're reffering to, you've taken them even more out of context than Barack Obama did.

1. I'm glad we agree. :)

2. What do you want me to say? "Oh don't worry. God's a pushover. Do whatever you want." ;)

Firstly, why do you think that all people before Jesus weren't saved? Secondly, if they're not a Christian, you can't possibly classify them as being "a good person", maybe by society's moral standards, but not by God's. Read my post on the other topic and you'll see just what a Loving and Kind god God is.

In regards to those verses you're reffering to, you've taken them even more out of context than Barack Obama did.

Lansdowne5

1. Sarcasm detector down I think.

2. So all non-Christians are bad and evil then. Bigotry and intolerance at it's finest.

And I am not taking those verses out of context, (that old excuse again). Have you even read the Bible.

Oh and carry on making such comments and your membership status will be removed.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

1. I'm glad we agree. :)

2. What do you want me to say? "Oh don't worry. God's a pushover. Do whatever you want." ;)

Firstly, why do you think that all people before Jesus weren't saved? Secondly, if they're not a Christian, you can't possibly classify them as being "a good person", maybe by society's moral standards, but not by God's. Read my post on the other topic and you'll see just what a Loving and Kind god God is.

In regards to those verses you're reffering to, you've taken them even more out of context than Barack Obama did.

felixlynch777

1. Sarcasm detector down I think.

2. So all non-Christians are bad and evil then. Bigotry and intolerance at it's finest.

And I am not taking those verses out of context, (that old excuse again). Have you even read the Bible.

Oh and carry on making such comments and your membership status will be removed.

1. Yours or mine. ;)

2. If you have a problem with the rules talk to God. It's not intolerance, it's justice. 

Comon, I'm just speaking my opinion, there's no need for threats.

Anyway, yes funnily enough I have read the Bible. And because of that I know why God was justified in killing the children.

He warned them what would happen, yet they disobeyed. If he had left the Children to be raised in a rebellious household, they would have learnt to dishonour him. Do you think it is God's fault the children died, or the parent's?

In a court of Law, is it the judge's "fault" that the criminal is sentenced to punishment, or the criminal's? 

1. Yours or mine. ;)

2. If you have a problem with the rules talk to God. It's not intolerance, it's justice.

Comon, I'm just speaking my opinion, there's no need for threats.

Anyway, yes funnily enough I have read the Bible. And because of that I know why God was justified in killing the children.

He warned them what would happen, yet they disobeyed. If he had left the Children to be raised in a rebellious household, they would have learnt to dishonour him. Do you think it is God's fault the children died, or the parent's?

In a court of Law, is it the judge's "fault" that the criminal is sentenced to punishment, or the criminal's?

Lansdowne5

There's a line between opinion and just insulting people. To say on a union with a majority non-Christians that non-Christians 'can't possibly be good' is not acceptable. I've deliberated with other officers and have come to the conclusion that this a warning for you. Please, I like your input here and I don't wan't to kick you but keep it respectful when debating.:)

And I'm sorry but no reason on earth can justify the killing of infants. On many instances he kills 'nursing' babies, which can't possibly be blamed for anything.

In a court of law the judge is often cruel and unfair and the laws are against justice.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

1. Yours or mine. ;)

2. If you have a problem with the rules talk to God. It's not intolerance, it's justice.

Comon, I'm just speaking my opinion, there's no need for threats.

Anyway, yes funnily enough I have read the Bible. And because of that I know why God was justified in killing the children.

He warned them what would happen, yet they disobeyed. If he had left the Children to be raised in a rebellious household, they would have learnt to dishonour him. Do you think it is God's fault the children died, or the parent's?

In a court of Law, is it the judge's "fault" that the criminal is sentenced to punishment, or the criminal's?

 

felixlynch777

There's a line between opinion and just insulting people. To say on a union with a majority non-Christians that non-Christians 'can't possibly be good' is not acceptable. I've deliberated with other officers and have come to the conclusion that this a warning for you. Please, I like your input here and I don't wan't to kick you but keep it respectful when debating.:)

And I'm sorry but no reason on earth can justify the killing of infants. On many instances he kills 'nursing' babies, which can't possibly be blamed for anything.

In a court of law the judge is often cruel and unfair and the laws are against justice.

Interesting conclusion you've come to. Though I never intended to insult, or be disrespectful to anyone. As I said, I'm not going by society's moral standards, I'm going by what's good in the eyes of God. 

Whether the judge is just or not is irrelevant to the matter in hand, it is more whether the criminal is worthy of the punishment. And to decide whether your judgement is equal to that of God's you would need to be equal with him, which you are not.

Could you perhaps prove that his judgement is not equal to that of "God's"? After all were supposedley made in his likeness, possibly meaning we may retain some similar cognitive abilities of "God". Stryder1212

In that we're made in his likeness, it means we have a Spirit. We have none of the "powers" of God.

Basically, is he a Divine and wholely Righteous being? If No, his judgement is not equal to that of God's. And I think we can agree the correct answer is not Yes. So therefore, by obvious logic, his judgement is certainly not equal to God's.

1. To quote from Ephesians 6:16 - "Take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." 

Shield of faith = Faith in the Living God and his Holy Word.

Flaming Arrows = Attacks on the faith, such as by Evolution.

And the Pope doesn't hold true to Scripture, he holds true to Catholic tradition and the words of fallen Man. 

2. Murder, as I'm sure you are aware, is a Sin. But regardless of that, you would also be taking away their chance to experience the wonders of this World, to follow God throughout it and find Salvation through Christ.

3. NA.

4. NA.

5. Scripture tells us everything we 'need' to know. Questions like that are purely trivial.

6. I think the conscious decision making is side tracking us a bit. One question, do animals know right from wrong?

7. The 'soul' never leaves the body, I worded the original question quite awkwardly, sorry about that. The spirit, is the eternal part of us which leaves the body. 

Lansdowne5

 1. The point is when the men who have the most to lose by acknowledging ideas contrary to central tennets of their religion admit that those ideas hold up to scrutiny, there must be a lot to be said for those ideas.

2.  But who really cares if they miss out on the things in this world when they get a free ride to heaven?  That is like saying "Don't tell your kids not to play with fire, because they will miss out on the journey of learning the power of fire by feeling the burn."  A big difference if christian doctrine is true, there is a much greater chance of that child going to hell than dying in a fire. 

And as far as murder being a sin.  If I believed what we are talking about here to be fact, I would think a person willing to damn their soul by killing hundreds or thousands of children to ensure they made it to heaven is the most considerate and self sacrificing person imaginable.

5.  ........science and philosophy teaches us everything we need to know.  If the bible was all we needed, we would still be living in the dark ages.  And such a question is not trivial if it forces a person to question their certainty about their stance on abortion.

6.  Sure they do.  There are all kinds of social phenomena observable in animals.  From currency-like blood in vampire bats being given or withheld depending on levels of reciprocal altruism to individuals sacrificing themselves for their kin, there is an sense of what is right or wrong socially in many animals.

7.  When the spirit leaves the body, what could it possibly take that is still us?  Our minds are transient features constantly altered by the physical alterations in our brains.  Does the "I" die and some ineffable energy that in no way resembles me live on?

There's a line between opinion and just insulting people. To say on a union with a majority non-Christians that non-Christians 'can't possibly be good' is not acceptable. I've deliberated with other officers and have come to the conclusion that this a warning for you. Please, I like your input here and I don't wan't to kick you but keep it respectful when debating.:)

And I'm sorry but no reason on earth can justify the killing of infants. On many instances he kills 'nursing' babies, which can't possibly be blamed for anything.

In a court of law the judge is often cruel and unfair and the laws are against justice.

felixlynch777

We should be careful in crying "insult."  I find it done quite frequently when speaking with christians and predominately in areas of a christian majority.  The free exchange of ideas, no matter how liked they are, is an invaluable resource in my opinion.  I have met varying levels of censorship in the past and wouldn't want to impose it on anyone.  Though I disagree with Lansdowne5, telling him what he can and cannot say is the type of dogmatism I would expect those on this side of the fence to be above.

We should be careful in crying "insult."  I find it done quite frequently when speaking with christians and predominately in areas of a christian majority.  The free exchange of ideas, no matter how liked they are, is an invaluable resource in my opinion.  I have met varying levels of censorship in the past and wouldn't want to impose it on anyone.  Though I disagree with Lansdowne5, telling him what he can and cannot say is the type of dogmatism I would expect those on this side of the fence to be above.

Sitri_

Good point. I completely agree. :)

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

1. Yours or mine. ;)

2. If you have a problem with the rules talk to God. It's not intolerance, it's justice.

Comon, I'm just speaking my opinion, there's no need for threats.

Anyway, yes funnily enough I have read the Bible. And because of that I know why God was justified in killing the children.

He warned them what would happen, yet they disobeyed. If he had left the Children to be raised in a rebellious household, they would have learnt to dishonour him. Do you think it is God's fault the children died, or the parent's?

In a court of Law, is it the judge's "fault" that the criminal is sentenced to punishment, or the criminal's?

 

felixlynch777

There's a line between opinion and just insulting people. To say on a union with a majority non-Christians that non-Christians 'can't possibly be good' is not acceptable. I've deliberated with other officers and have come to the conclusion that this a warning for you. Please, I like your input here and I don't wan't to kick you but keep it respectful when debating.:)

And I'm sorry but no reason on earth can justify the killing of infants. On many instances he kills 'nursing' babies, which can't possibly be blamed for anything.

In a court of law the judge is often cruel and unfair and the laws are against justice.

I'm the oddball in the room with the maybe. I'm just not sure on the subject. I think we can have a "soul" and not have a God, or we could just die. Might need to be my next bit of research.btaylor2404

I hope so, but I have no idea.

I will say, however, that I firmly believe that if souls do exist, then humans are most certainly not the only creatures to have them.