The Soul

[Roses]

I am of the opinion that the word 'soul' is just another term for human consciousness, which ceases to exist on death.

For those who believe the human soul is created by god and survives death, what evidence do you have to support that supposition?

I suspect this will be a very short thread.

[ekim]

I suspect that the story might be something like this.  The word 'soul' is a word which represents 'life' and that the 'light' of life' represents awareness or consciousness.  All life forms have 'soul' within them.  Humans have the ability to not only direct that 'light of life' outwards in order to facilitate the establishment of the life form, but also inwards upon the subconscious thought forms and emotions of the mind and beyond that mind upon  'soul' or life itself.  The Jesus method was 'metanoia' (beyond mind), unfortunately translated as 'repent', which illuminated life to the extent that the individual could declare the realisation 'I am the Life'. 
As regards 'God', there are some indications in the Bible in the belief that God is Life and life eternal and so the process then becomes 'God realisation', and death is simply the degeneration of the life form.  When that happens the question then becomes one of being conscious of the Life I am or being unconscious.  As regards evidence, there is none other than sustained 'Self/Life' realisation.

[SteveH]

I am of the opinion that the word 'soul' is just another term for human consciousness, which ceases to exist on death.

I agree.

For those who believe the human soul is created by god and survives death, what evidence do you have to support that supposition?

I think heaven and hell are in this life - they are a quality of life, not a quantity of it. There may be a conscious life after death, but we can never know. That, I suppose, is where faith comes in.

[Anchorman]

Why post this in the Christian topic? Other faiths and religions accept some concept of a soul as well. The concept is an ancient one, not even confined to monotheistic religions and can be a rather complex concept in some now defuncr t - or nearly defunct - religions.

[Roses]

Why post this in the Christian topic? Other faiths and religions accept some concept of a soul as well. The concept is an ancient one, not even confined to monotheistic religions and can be a rather complex concept in some now defuncr t - or nearly defunct - religions.

The Christian religion is the one with which I am familiar. I am sure the mods will place this thread on another board if they think it more appropriate.

[~TW~]

Little rose your opinion-------your opinion-what does the bible say.

[~TW~]

Far to many--I thinks and My opinions go to scripture.We dont want your thinks or your opinions we want you to quote scripture.

[~TW~]

 How do people who tell us man does not have a soul/spirit/inner man manage to talk about or explain the Spiritual rebirth,because that is what is.And it is a Spiritual Resurrection I see it as the first resurrection. 25 Believe me, an important time is coming. That time is already here. People who are dead will hear the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live.

[Robbie]

Fascination. Do tell us more. Welcome.

What do your initials 'TW' stand for? I've seen them used in articles on the internet, I've been called a TERF but I'm not hostile.

[SteveH]

Far to many--I thinks and My opinions go to scripture.We dont want your thinks or your opinions we want you to quote scripture.

Speak for yourself! Why are the opinions of the Scripture-writers more valuable than anyone else's? Please don't say "because it's the word of God": that is merely your arbitrary opinion, and is rather contradicted by the appalling cruelty apparently commanded by God that is described in the Old Testament, and the many inconsistencies within it.

[~TW~]

Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.

[SteveH]

Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.

Some versions of Christianity take Scripture as the ultimate authority, some Church pronouncements, and some human reason. I'm a human-reason type of Christian.

How about answering my question?

[torridon]

Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.

Doesn't work like that.  The Christian Topic is there for discussion of christian topics; you cannot set your own parameters on top of that restricting the debate to what scriptures say about the concept.  People from varying backgrounds can have a view on such concepts.

[Roses]

Little rose your opinion-------your opinion-what does the bible say.

What the Bible has to say is neither here or there.

[Alan Burns]

Some versions of Christianity take Scripture as the ultimate authority, some Church pronouncements, and some human reason. I'm a human-reason type of Christian.

But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.

My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.

[torridon]

But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.

My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.

 .. which is why science, in order to try to get closer to objective truth, long ago realised that human biases need to be eliminated as far as possible from investigation.  I work in a pharma company and it is now standard practice to adopt blinded randomised trials to ascertain the effectiveness of new compounds.  If you just ask people for their anecdotal opinion, you will likely be getting their bias, not objective fact.  People who routinely view issues through the lens of their particular faith be it RC or whatever, are indulging the bias that is inherent in that lens. Faith, any faith, is ultimately, the enemy of truth,

[ekim]

Faith, any faith, is ultimately, the enemy of truth,

Does that mean that one should not have faith in the scientific method or even in that statement?

[Stranger]

But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.

Whereas seeking truth via scripture and prayer is so totally reliable that everybody always agrees. That's why there's only one religion and never any disagreements about it...

 

You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.

That's not actually the case, though, is it? If you ask most people about matters of established scientific fact or mathematical reasoning, I don't think you'd get much disagreement. The device you are using to read this on is testament to the reliability of human reasoning and science.

[Anchorman]

Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.

   



Hi, TW - welcome back.

Yep; we are indeed speaking of what the Scriptures say....trouble is, there are many translations available, and ' soul' isn't used in all of them.
Of course I accept that our spirit survived - how could I not - and that  we will be gloriously recreared in the continuance of our new life begun when we accept Christ for who He is; but 'soul' has a concept in other world religions, even though you and I might reject them...hence I wanted this taken from the Christian section.
Now, I'd replace it with 'New life in Christ'.

[torridon]

Does that mean that one should not have faith in the scientific method or even in that statement?

I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical.  That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.

[Roses]

But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.

My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.

Which is all the more reason for people to be very sceptical as the RCC doctrine is flawed, to say the least.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Anchs,

Yep; we are indeed speaking of what the Scriptures say....trouble is, there are many translations available, and ' soul' isn't used in all of them.
Of course I accept that our spirit survived - how could I not - and that  we will be gloriously recreared in the continuance of our new life begun when we accept Christ for who He is; but 'soul' has a concept in other world religions, even though you and I might reject them...hence I wanted this taken from the Christian section.
Now, I'd replace it with 'New life in Christ'.

The “trouble” is deeper than that I think. How religious texts should be interpreted is well and good for those who like that sort of thing, but before you get there there’s the ticklish problem of explaining why they should be considered “holy” at all. The likes of TW gloss that bit as a given, but some of us find the statement “I’m a man of faith” (with an expectation that the attendant claims should be treated with respect) actually means something like, “I privilege just guessing over reason and evidence”.

And the only rational response to that I find is, “so ****ing what?”   

[ekim]

I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical.  That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.

I think it depends upon how the word 'faith' is used.  I understand that the Greek word used in the New Testament is more to do with persistence with a method to attain a believed result e.g. Heaven.  Such 'faith' in the scientific method has demonstrable results to shore up that faith.  What the methods don't do is confer automatic virtue on the faithful users of the methods e.g. Novichok inventors, religious persecutors, political extremists.  There are elements in most religious scripture which attempt to guide the 'faithful' towards virtue and away from vice so that some kind of transformation of the human being takes place.  As we can see on our streets and the Internet, the neutral scientific method can be used to promote vice as well as virtue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think it depends upon how the word 'faith' is used.  I understand that the Greek word used in the New Testament is more to do with persistence with a method to attain a believed result e.g. Heaven.  Such 'faith' in the scientific method has demonstrable results to shore up that faith.  What the methods don't do is confer automatic virtue on the faithful users of the methods e.g. Novichok inventors, religious persecutors, political extremists.  There are elements in most religious scripture which attempt to guide the 'faithful' towards virtue and away from vice so that some kind of transformation of the human being takes place.  As we can see on our streets and the Internet, the neutral scientific method can be used to promote vice as well as virtue.

You’re conflating the meanings of “faith” here: “a subjective belief I hold because it’s meaningful to me”, vs “an objective belief I hold because there’s reason and evidence to support it”. I have “faith” that my car will start because it’s a reliable car; I don’t have “faith” that a St Christopher hanging from the mirror will prevent accidents.

Whether “transformation” in behaviour happens has nothing to do with it, and nor does the use to which scientific findings are put. The issue is about establishing probable truths, not about comparing the desirability of outcomes.     

[Sriram]

I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical.  That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.

Blind faith is different from faith as subtle knowledge. Blind faith is believing without question some book or ancient teaching.

Often we understand certain patterns and forces working in our lives in a very subtle manner without really understanding them clearly.  But we nevertheless know that these forces are there. This knowledge is faith.....because we know there is something but we don't understand it. We may label it as God or whatever, which is besides the point.