|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the soul? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6463 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
Now why on earth would Jesus want to split up families??? I think that He is essentially saying that because of His Oneness, there will be people either flocking towards Him (in communion) or rejecting Him. This seems to contradict passages saying that one should honor his (or her) mother and father, not to hate, etc. Of course, we can assert (and probably have to, when we get down to the end of the day), that Jesus is teaching different things on different levels. Now, taking this back to the question of the soul, is the soul on a "different" level from the spirit, the body, or anything else? Never overestimate the intelligence of someone who thinks you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1966 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The soul of man is the seat of three functions:
1.) The mind 2.) The emotion 3.) The will With the mind man thinks and considers and understands.With the emotion man loves or hates and generally feels about things. With the will man decides and chooses. Biblically, the majority of the verses which mention man's soul involve one or more of these activities. If you think it a little you may discover that practically everything you do involves the mind thinking, the emotion either liking or disliking, and finally the will deciding. These three functions are a fundamental part of almost everything we do in our daily lives. We think about a certain matter. We have a feeling one way or another about it. Then we decide what action we will do in relation to that matter - mind, emotion, will. These are the three functions of the human soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bashier Ahmed Inactive Member |
My perception suggest that as we are part of universe we can't avoid this study. Perhaps without a pure science on this subject all our other sciences are incomplete.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is a scientific Research on SOUL would be Fair? Hablas Inglés? I think the question is 'Would scientific research on {the} SOUL be fair?' and the answer is no.
My perception suggest that as we are part of universe we can't avoid this study. It is easy to avoid, with the lack of objective evidence, by simply assuming it doesn't exist.
Perhaps without a pure science on this subject all our other sciences are incomplete. All the sciences are incomplete, i mean, they know that they don't know everything and the more they know the more they realize they don't know, or something like that. It doesn't matter if science is incomplete as long as the things it has completed continue to hold true. Science is doing great while ignoring the soul and without an objective means of detection, the soul should continue to be avoided by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Since there is no evidence that something called a soul exists, how would you go about studying it? If there is a soul that can be tested scientifically, then wouldn't that mean it is simply material and not spiritual?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6463 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
quote: Did all or a majority of Bible writers see the soul in all three ways mentioned above every time they used the word nephesh or psyche? More importantly, did they see it in any other ways not mentioned above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bashier Ahmed Inactive Member |
Would Isac Newton have an objective mean, when he found the rule of gravity? Instead people that time might think he was mad. Did Right Brothers know before invention of Plane that their new invention will change the travelling & transportation at this advance stage we are living in today.
All discoveries & inventions are basically for the satisfaction of the man himself. Satisfaction & enjoyment of some achievement of knowledge. I dont think a labeled-scientist can do much in his field who has a kindo serious objectives. He is just a knowlege worker & not a scientist who freedomly,curriously & passionatly tries to discover the beauty of the nature. In short, if there is a rule by granted in history of science that "If we feel the existance of something but we can't observe, kik off it out of science" then that rule must be discarded as soon as we can. There is never too late. Infact existance of any thing has either of the two effects. 1) Observation 2) Experience. Both have evidence. The only difference is that the second one reuires more efforts. This message has been edited by Bashier Ahmed, 04-21-2006 02:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bashier Ahmed Inactive Member |
I would like to talk about the very evidences of the Soul.
1) A child remembers about his previous birth experiences. He knows his name, his father's & mother's name & the names of relatives & in some cases the names of his killer. Not only he tells a far distant place but also identifies when the child has been brought to that location. Then he recognises many things there. A child who never went the place, how can he remebers all the things. This is not one case but I myself read some of the cases in newspaper. There is two possiblities: 1) He simply tells his imaginatin which affected by stories, movies, tv, reading etc. 2) He is a lier.In any of the case either imagination or lie, he could not get that much accuracy unless he experience that in his previous birth. I briefly tell you the another evidence. That is, a person saved from death & then he remembers his experience during his death process. Above two cases are not direct but atleast indirect evidences of soul. These must be studied with the sincere efforts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bashier Ahmed Inactive Member |
If a person given annesthesia he does not have either of the things: mind, emotion & will. But still he does exist! Then this existance is Soul. If I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5933 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Bashier Ahmed
A child remembers about his previous birth experiences. He knows his name, his father's & mother's name & the names of relatives & in some cases the names of his killer. CAre to back up this assertion with actual case files?
This is not one case but I myself read some of the cases in newspaper. Oh well why did you not mention that right off the bat? If it was in a newspaper the validity of the claim must be without question.
There is two possiblities: 1) He simply tells his imaginatin which affected by stories, movies, tv, reading etc. 2) He is a lier. 3 he is delusional 4 he is chemically imbalanced in the brain 5 he sincerely believes such to be the ase but has not critically examined his experience.
I briefly tell you the another evidence. That is, a person saved from death & then he remembers his experience during his death process. This is not an evidence but a assertion and not a particularly good one at that.
Above two cases are not direct but atleast indirect evidences of soul. These must be studied with the sincere efforts. Sorry friend but anecdotal recitations are not evidnece but opinion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't see the necessity for the concept of "soul." I always thought "mind" would do.
"A man with a good car doesn't have to be justified"---Flannery O'Connor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mind doesn't include emotions, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Mind doesn't include emotions, does it? To me it does. Ok, let's just say "consciousness."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Would Isac Newton have an objective mean, when he found the rule of gravity? Yeah, the apple that fell on his head.
I dont think a labeled-scientist can do much in his field who has a kindo serious objectives. I don't understand what your He is just a knowlege worker & not a scientist who freedomly,curriously & passionatly tries to discover the beauty of the nature. What's your point? I don't think discovering the beauty of the nature is a doctrine of science. Whats wrong with just being a knowledge worker?
If we feel the existance of something but we can't observe That’s where science loses interest. When it can’t be observed it is just someone’s assertion and not something worth scientific study.
that rule must be discarded as soon as we can. There is never too late. I think it is a good rule and should not be discarded. It opens too broad of a door, science would have to look into everything that people are claiming exist without evidence. It would hinder scientific progress and it wouldn’t provide any results that are worth anything (to science). And if its never to late then lets just worry about it later. Science is doing fine with the rule so until we see a problem.... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Infact existance of any thing has either of the two effects. 1) Observation 2) Experience. Both have evidence. Experiences are subjective and observations are objective. Subjective experiences cannot be trusted to be something that actually exists. Science requires objective observation, that’s just the way it is. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
robinrohan writes: I don't see the necessity for the concept of "soul." I always thought "mind" would do. Faith writes: Mind doesn't include emotions, does it? robinrohan writes: To me it does. Ok, let's just say "consciousness." Uhh, lets just say "soul". thats what the thread is about...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024