-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe we all have souls?
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
"Spinkosity"?! Now you're just making things up...
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
But I am not even sure what it is first. I'm not fit to make a good decision about it yet.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Wrong, Master Vigil! Because if you don't know what it is...it can be whatever you want. That way, no one can question your beleif and it can never be disproved.
Also, when new scientific findings come around, you can adapt your definition to fit the times! It's a fool-proof beleif!
Also, when new scientific findings come around, you can adapt your definition to fit the times! It's a fool-proof beleif!
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
But, just because I do not know about it doesn't change what it is. I can form my own opinion about it, but that doesn't make it a sound or even a valid opinion. That is why I never say anything unless I know what I am talking about.
Sure the religion would work, but without a sound foundation, it would not last.
Sure the religion would work, but without a sound foundation, it would not last.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You're right, Master Vigil.
All I need now is a charismatic leader who will command blind loyalty from his followers, and BINGO BANGO! We've got ourselves a bunch of people so sure that Spinkility exists that they'll die for me (er, for whoever the charismatic leader is) to prove it.
All I need now is a charismatic leader who will command blind loyalty from his followers, and BINGO BANGO! We've got ourselves a bunch of people so sure that Spinkility exists that they'll die for me (er, for whoever the charismatic leader is) to prove it.
true blood
Active Member
I believe all Monera (bacteria), Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia, Viruses, Humans have souls.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
They do true blood.
Runt
Well-Known Member
It probably begins with the definition of the soul. In Christianity and many other religions, the soul is an immortal entity that resides in the body and leaves upon death with the personality intact. For Taoists, it is something more akin to the ENERGY of life, rather than something "personal", which simply becomes one with the Tao upon death. For Taoists, EVERYTHING has this soul... human, animal, plant... rock.
true blood
Active Member
I base all my beliefs on the bible and science and whether it feels right deep down inside. I define soul as "life which animates an organism"
How is this wrong at so many levels? What I listed were living organisms split into their Kingdoms. You could add Bacteria and the Archaea as the Prokaryotae are now divided into two domains.
"In Christianity and many other religions, the soul is an immortal entity that resides in the body and leaves upon death with the personality intact."
I'm not sure what you mean about immortal entity of the souls for these organisms.
How is this wrong at so many levels? What I listed were living organisms split into their Kingdoms. You could add Bacteria and the Archaea as the Prokaryotae are now divided into two domains.
"In Christianity and many other religions, the soul is an immortal entity that resides in the body and leaves upon death with the personality intact."
I'm not sure what you mean about immortal entity of the souls for these organisms.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Yes, well, it gets a little tricky trying to translate eastern ideas into English terminology. Who the hell gets to be the one to decide which version of the term is accurate? Those who used it first? Those who use it most often? Some unknown committee that decides these things? Even among Christians there are no two common definitions of spiritual words. Going back to "God" for example... for one kind of Christian God is "one", for Catholics God is "three". And then you have the idea that the word in Hebrew is NOT God but was translated as "God". Which is right?
If we didn't have multiple meanings for terms, our language would be WAAAY broader than it is now. However, perhaps it would make you happier if Taoists referred to the soul as an "essence", since their definition of the word is not exactly the same as that of a Christian?
If we didn't have multiple meanings for terms, our language would be WAAAY broader than it is now. However, perhaps it would make you happier if Taoists referred to the soul as an "essence", since their definition of the word is not exactly the same as that of a Christian?
I base all my beliefs on the bible and science and whether it feels right deep down inside.
I wouldnt want to trust the bible and gut feelings for trying to understand how things work, completely unreliable and open to contradiction.
I define soul as "life which animates an organism"
Why not just call it that? The theistic definition of a soul does not follow your definition.
OH-OH - Runts ranting about definitions again.
I wouldnt want to trust the bible and gut feelings for trying to understand how things work, completely unreliable and open to contradiction.
I define soul as "life which animates an organism"
Why not just call it that? The theistic definition of a soul does not follow your definition.
OH-OH - Runts ranting about definitions again.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"I define soul as "life which animates an organism"
Why not just call it that? The theistic definition of a soul does not follow your definition."
Why, when we can just say "soul." It's so much easier. Taoists would go even further and discuss how the soul is made of chi. But then it's extrememly hard to explain chi using english words or american ideas. It's something that must be experienced. The best words for it are, breath, life, power, spirit, energy, essence, etc... But not one of those words describe it efficiently.
Why not just call it that? The theistic definition of a soul does not follow your definition."
Why, when we can just say "soul." It's so much easier. Taoists would go even further and discuss how the soul is made of chi. But then it's extrememly hard to explain chi using english words or american ideas. It's something that must be experienced. The best words for it are, breath, life, power, spirit, energy, essence, etc... But not one of those words describe it efficiently.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think the problem is may people have an emotional attachment/affinity for the word "soul" which conjures up feelings of meaning and inspiration, as opposed to regular (scientific) terms which don't carry emotional baggage along with the definition.
By adapting this definition of "soul" Runt (and many others) have found a solution--the definition is now such a broad generalization ("an essence") that it's virtually impossible to have a debate on its existence or lack thereof, and it's a word (soul) that inspires pleasant feelings on the definition which translate into psychological benefits. This is unlike scientific words which are supposed to be emotionally neutral and bland--the intent of these words is to describe phenomena without a connotation of good or bad--the phenomena are what they are, that's it.
It's the definition of a soul we all want to get at--not the word itself.
Let's end the soul debate--let's talk about the existence of Spinkility, which I define as a certain anger in some things. So for example, we can observe Spinkility in raging fires, tornadoes, or angry people. They are all connected in that they all desire to change in rapid motion. Who dares to challenge my belief in Spinkility? :mrgreen:
By adapting this definition of "soul" Runt (and many others) have found a solution--the definition is now such a broad generalization ("an essence") that it's virtually impossible to have a debate on its existence or lack thereof, and it's a word (soul) that inspires pleasant feelings on the definition which translate into psychological benefits. This is unlike scientific words which are supposed to be emotionally neutral and bland--the intent of these words is to describe phenomena without a connotation of good or bad--the phenomena are what they are, that's it.
It's the definition of a soul we all want to get at--not the word itself.
Let's end the soul debate--let's talk about the existence of Spinkility, which I define as a certain anger in some things. So for example, we can observe Spinkility in raging fires, tornadoes, or angry people. They are all connected in that they all desire to change in rapid motion. Who dares to challenge my belief in Spinkility? :mrgreen:
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
HAHAHA!!! You do humor me Mr. Spinkles (I guess we all know where your name came from now.) Hmmm... Its an interesting thought, but I'm confused as to what the rapid motion has to do with the anger. Please elaborate on that.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
(I'm making this all up) There is Spinkility in all rapid motion because rapid motion has a certain anger-ness to it, which causes things to no longer be calm. Spinkility is the angerness that connects all angry things. It's hard to describe really, with all these confusing words and such.
Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. On a sidenote, I came up with the name back in 7th grade when I noticed that all online multiplayer gamers used names like "SiLenT_DeAtH" or "ELITEsniper" etc. I wanted to be original.
Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. On a sidenote, I came up with the name back in 7th grade when I noticed that all online multiplayer gamers used names like "SiLenT_DeAtH" or "ELITEsniper" etc. I wanted to be original.