What Is The Soul?

devnull said:
You are defining "soul" as "the blood or the life of a person or breathing animal"?

Both blood and life exist. I'm not sure your definition is typical, especially since it defines 2 things at the same time, but I'm not going to argue with you that either blood or life do not exist.

Was this the point of the thread?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the Bible defines the soul as the blood or the live of a person or breathing animal. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,*17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The purpose of this thread is to educate the typically uninformed skeptic of the variation between the Bible and the teachings of modern day Christianity which adopted the idea of the immortal soul.

When I hear skeptics, especially science minded atheists, criticising the Bible, they are actually criticising those pagan teachings.
 
devnull said:
But doesn't that render the bible's definition of "soul" to be awfully trivial and unnecessary/superfluous?

Why didn't they just use the word "blood", "hemoglobin" (considering the bible is God's word, and Im sure God knew about hemoglobin back then) or indeed "life" instead?
Click to expand...

Blood and life are trivial? Perhaps the idea of the soul not being an immortal (insert religious nonsense here) is a bit difficult to grasp?
 
Hokulele said:
Well, this idea, plus those David Henson listed in the last post I responded to, are fairly standard amongst the Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

Most people just close the door on them, but talking with one is fairly interesting. It is amazing how many religions sincerely believe they have the one and only TruthTM.
Click to expand...

Would anyone buy into one that claimed otherwise?

[Knock on door] "Hello, we are here to share with you a sort of almost truth."

"Oh, sorry, the JW's were here yesterday and they sold me the only real truth."

"Drats! Foiled again!"
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
I'm saying that the Bible defines the soul as the blood or the live of a person or breathing animal. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,*17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The purpose of this thread is to educate the typically uninformed skeptic of the variation between the Bible and the teachings of modern day Christianity which adopted the idea of the immortal soul.
When I hear skeptics, especially science minded atheists, criticising the Bible, they are actually criticising those pagan teachings.
Click to expand...
This is why I asked you initially what your main motive was.

David Henson said:
Blood and life are trivial? Perhaps the idea of the soul not being an immortal (insert religious nonsense here) is a bit difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...
What is your root, main goal. Instead of building up to it, why don't you state it plainly. Make a list.

* Most modern day Xtianity is apostate and plagued by misinterpretations through pagan Xtiantiy
* the bible is the inerrant word of god
* what else?
 
paximperium said:
To answer the OP:
The soul is whatever the heck the claimant wants it to be. It is often defined(a bit of an oxymoron) as some undefined animating "thing" that makes human life more special.
Click to expand...

The claimant, in this case, is the grossly misunderstood and misrepresented Bible.
 
trentwray said:
If a person deals with any kind of blood disorders, do you think this points to an issue with the soul, and/or what your god claims from the soul/blood?
Click to expand...

No. The soul (life) is in the blood, in that sense the blood is the soul. The Hebrew dam Greek haima are translated blood. If the Hebrew ruach means literally "breather" and the spirit "breath" the blood carries or allows "life" which is sacred to God.

trentwray said:
And are you a Jehovah's Witness? Regardless, I'd still appreciate answers to that last post I made about describing Jehovah ...
Click to expand...

I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a great deal in common in our beliefs because they have done a remarkable job in removing the pagan influence of apostate Christianity from their teachings and they are careful students of the Bible, but they have also, unfortunately, fallen into some of the trappings of religious "thinking." In the past they have had changes in position on neutrality, education, vaccinations, organ transplants and other things which, had they not had such a tyrannical need for dictatorship they wouldn't have been so irresponsible. They also have a history of false prophecy.

They tend to see themselves as being the organization of Jehovah and so their decisions are God's decisions. This also has resulted in them placing themselves into prophecy or ritual which is obviously nothing more than religious nonsense. The two witnesses, for example . . . the so called "anointed."
 
paximperium said:
I'm superficially aware of Jehovah's Witness(having dealt with some of their dangerous idiocy before) and their interpretation of the Biblical passages but I still don't see what's so special about blood or how it relates to the "soul".
Click to expand...

Soul = "breather."

Spirit = "breath."
________________

= Life
 
trentwray said:
This is why I asked you initially what your main motive was.

What is your root, main goal. Instead of building up to it, why don't you state it plainly. Make a list.

* Most modern day Xtianity is apostate and plagued by misinterpretations through pagan Xtiantiy
* the bible is the inerrant word of god
* what else?
Click to expand...

When you asked me the purpose of the thread was to tell you, briefly and in a basic sense, what I thought the Bible said about the soul and to comprehend what you all had to say about it. Then it began to evolve into what it is now.

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant.
 
devnull said:
Why not say "blood" or "life"?
Click to expand...

You mean like "the blood is in the blood" instead of "the soul is in the blood" or "the life is the life" instead of "the soul is the life." I wouldn't put it past some translations, but that wouldn't be accurate. I don't think it would simplify things, either. I think you are just having trouble in an attempt to substitute one brand of what you surely must imagine as just another brand of nonsense when if you actually took a careful look it would make more sense at least on some level.
 
David Henson said:
When you asked me the purpose of the thread was to tell you, briefly and in a basic sense, what I thought the Bible said about the soul and to comprehend what you all had to say about it. Then it began to evolve into what it is now.

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant.
Click to expand...
You did say it was infallible though, yes? What is the difference? Do you believe it can be infallible but also in error at the same time? Maybe I don't understand the meanings of the words as I thought ....

Regardless ... still ... do you view the bible as equal to god? Or is the bible god? Or can a person know god without a bible? Why/why not?
 
I would speculate that the idea of a "soul" long predates any sort of organized religion. I would think it would originate with primitive animistic beliefs. Animists believe that "animating spirits" are responsible for life, and when the spirit leaves the body, life ceases. The spirit is in some way capable of carrying on and interacting with the world.
A logical enough belief for our primitive ancestors... They would be familiar with death by trauma, of course, but what happened when grandpa Uugh went to sleep one night and simply didn't wake up?
Obviously, his spirit departed.... Indeed, that term for death has lasted to the present day. To tie this spirit in some way to breath (as did the Hindus) or blood (many others) again seems logical....No breath, no life. Loose too much blood..You die.

These ideas would go way back...Possibly even prior to the emergence of Homo Sapiens.

Current ideas of the soul in some way maintaining one's personality in a non-physical form are just extrapolations of the ideas of our ancestors.
It's an appealing idea, and that no doubt speaks for it's survival despite the lack of any evidence.
 
David Henson said:
The purpose of this thread is to educate the typically uninformed skeptic of the variation between the Bible and the teachings of modern day Christianity which adopted the idea of the immortal soul.

When I hear skeptics, especially science minded atheists, criticising the Bible, they are actually criticising those pagan teachings.
Click to expand...
I don't really take too much mind of what the bible says, as it's clearly a bunch of misogynistic and ridiculous contradictory hooey written by men, who were only inspired by their own desire for power, and nothing remotely "divine" or "truthful."

It's a horrible book of fiction, and god is the main villain. My criticisms of the bible are a separate but sometimes secondary layer to my criticisms of theistic belief in general.

David Henson said:
Blood and life are trivial? Perhaps the idea of the soul not being an immortal (insert religious nonsense here) is a bit difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...
Who said that blood and life are trivial? They're very real, and I don't particularly care what the bible has to say about either. I'm not going to take moral teachings or any other kind of teaching from a book that will also teach me (a female) that I'm a worthless, filthy piece of property, available for raping by whoever is in the vicinity (maybe I'll be lucky like Mary and get raped by Jehovah himself!! *squee!* :rolleyes:) and commanded to be silent. Sorry if I ignore moral teachings that include: slavery, genocide, rape, torture of innocent children, gang rapes, incest, and blood sacrifices.

And yes, the idea of anything "immortal" is difficult to grasp. An immortal soul is just plain ridiculous. Do you have any evidence of immortal souls (outside of the bible)?
eta: Scratch the last question, as I reread and see David said the soul was not immortal. I guess I'm really wondering why he thinks atheists would have a hard time thinking that soul had to be immortal because the bible says so....? (If I got that thinking right.)
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
I don't think that referencing the Bible is circular reasoning if the Bible is my reference point on the soul. I believe the Bible - the Bible says this on the soul.

If I said that I believe Gandalf was a troll in Middle Earth and used the Lord Of The Rings as a reference I would be wrong in what Gandalf was but I would be reasonable in using the Lord Of The Rings as a reference and the sensible response would be to correct me using the same work.
Click to expand...

Newsbreak: Claiming something is true because it's written in some book, is circular reasoning.

So yeah. Both your Bible claim and the Lord Of The Rings example are samples of circular reasoning. If you claimed Gandalf existed in real life you would need far more proof than a fictional book.
 
David Henson said:
Yes. That assumption is correct. I believe in the Bible and God, as Jehovah God's word.
Click to expand...
.
As has been and will be pointed out to you and all the other bible thumpers that rely on that for their thinking, the bible is a collection of folk tales and myths and social rules built upon many years of wishful thinking and chest beating and real life experience, all funneled through the imaginations of many people, a goodly number of whom were bonkers, and operating to a standard agenda of social control of the population, through misinformation, fear and threats of both real and after-death punishment for failure to knuckle under and accept that crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom