What Is The Soul?

David Henson said:
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."
Click to expand...

See, again, you just altered your definition of "soul".

So now "soul" is in the blood/life?

Even using your new definition, I can still use the word "life", which again, is trivial.

My point to you is, even using your own definitions, "soul" is not as simple as you are claiming. Is it a thing? Its in my blood, is it iron?
 
David Henson said:
I believe in creation rather than evolution, but I am against teaching creation in school.
Click to expand...

So why do you disbelieve evolution? Have you considered the evidence? Have you studied the subject? Can you disprove it in some way? Do you find yourself ignoring or avoiding evidence for evolution?

How about creationism? Do you have any evidence? Any evidence for your god? The soul? Any evidence for the truthfulness of the bible? Do you have any evidence against all other religions? Given your thread on deluge mythology, why is your particular bible's text on it "true" compared with, for example, the Sumerian myths?

Or are you merely another creationist who will simply ignore reality because it makes you feel uncomfortable because it impinges on your fantasies that were instilled in you before you were old enough to defend yourself?
 
paximperium said:
Bingo. What your Bible has to say on a subject is pretty irrelevant since you have yet to:
1)Provide any evidence for the existence of a soul, well except to call it blood; which makes all the other nonsense spouted about blood, uh I mean soul, irrelevant since medicine knows a lot about blood already.
2)Tell us why anyone why anyone should treat a book of fiction seriously?
Click to expand...

Not even a single book of fiction, but rather several books of fiction that were often written by authors with very different ideas about God. Given the numerous contradictions in the books that ended up in the Bible I can't see taking it as offering the truth about anything other than the various beliefs of the authors.
 
Hokulele said:
What the Bible says on any given topic is only important if you believe the Bible is an accurate source of information. So far, there is no evidence to believe it is any more accurate than any other collection of writings from a similar time period, and several reasons to believe it is less accurate than some.

Knowing what the Bible really says is useful when discussing things with those who have faith in the Bible, not so much otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hokulele, if what the Bible says isn't important to unbelievers then why is there such a profound interest in whatever I say about the Bible? Let me tell you what I think. When the True Scottsman gave a post on scripture there was little interest aside from criticism on the pointlessness of it.

The reason? The Bible is of no interest to most unbelievers but shouting down a believer is of great interest.

When you talk to skeptics and atheists they think that they can dismiss any claims that you may or even my not make by shouting "Give us evidence!" The Bible is the evidence for God, but atheists really don't want evidence, they just think that you don't have any so they can dismiss everything you say with that lame defense. If you give atheists evidence for something they don't want to believe they won't accept or even consider it.

The real purpose of atheism is an emotional expression of political and social frustration in a theistic society.
 
I Ratant said:
.
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.
Click to expand...

See, thats how you see God and the Bible because that is how religion has presented it, and the [expletive]s over at infidels argue it.

That isn't what you would find if you fairly evaluated the evidence of the Bible.
 
The bible is still not a proof of anything, it doesn't even get the history right, and it is not the only religious book on the shelves.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
DavidHenson said:
The Bible is the evidence for God, but atheists really don't want evidence, they just think that you don't have any so they can dismiss everything you say with that lame defense.
Click to expand...
Huh? How is the bible evidence for god? It's a book, and a poorly constructed one at that.

Is the Lord of the Rings trilogy evidence for the existence of hobbits, elves, orcs, and wizards? Does it explain the events of thousands of years ago, when Sauron was defeated for the second time?

Is the Harry Potter series evidence for the existence of Voldemort, and an invisible magical world existing alongside our own?

All of these books are books of fiction, and they're not evidence of anything real. They're the products of very active imaginations, and can be a very enjoyable diversion from real life, but they're not historical truths.
 
David Henson said:
See, thats how you see God and the Bible because that is how religion has presented it, and the [expletive]s over at infidels argue it.
Click to expand...
No, read it, couldn't believe people buy into it, end of story, has nothing to do with religion, has to do with the BS in the book itself.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
The real purpose of atheism is an emotional expression of political and social frustration in a theistic society.
Click to expand...
Atheism doesn't have a purpose. It's a statement of belief.

Q: Do you believe in any gods?

A: No.

That person ^^ is an atheist.

I've never believed in gods because I was never taught by my parents that I should. (They didn't teach me to believe in fairies, pixies, or Santa Claus either.) Are you going to tell me that as a 7-year old little girl that my atheism was an emotional expression of political or social frustration?

I'm going to assume for a moment that you don't believe in Zeus and the gang. Is that particular atheism an emotional response to anything, or is it a correct and rational position, based on evidence (or lack thereof)?
 
David Henson said:
Hokulele, if what the Bible says isn't important to unbelievers then why is there such a profound interest in whatever I say about the Bible? Let me tell you what I think. When the True Scottsman gave a post on scripture there was little interest aside from criticism on the pointlessness of it.

The reason? The Bible is of no interest to most unbelievers but shouting down a believer is of great interest.

When you talk to skeptics and atheists they think that they can dismiss any claims that you may or even my not make by shouting "Give us evidence!" The Bible is the evidence for God, but atheists really don't want evidence, they just think that you don't have any so they can dismiss everything you say with that lame defense. If you give atheists evidence for something they don't want to believe they won't accept or even consider it.

The real purpose of atheism is an emotional expression of political and social frustration in a theistic society.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you to a degree here. If someone is going to use the bible to prove God .... I think it's the weakest argument a person can possibly have and it deserves to be poked and prodded from every possible angle until God shows up and takes over and speaks for himself.

However, if you're looking to the bible for historical accuracy, philosophical ideas, and/or scientific explanations ----- then that's another matter alltogether. It should still be scrutinized, but I agree that the level of emotion involved probably won't be as heightened. Why would it? The substance in the bible is either going to be true or it isn't. THER WILL BE NO PERSONAL VESTED INTEREST EITHER WAY iow.

But I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You're trying to prove God with the bible, and so proving the bible equals proving god. You're clinging tightly to it while masking the true agenda. I don't think you realize that you are emotionally charged and projecting that. And you should be emotionally charged ... if the bible is a living, breathing part of god (a supposedly personal entity), attacking the bible isn't attacking an argument, it's attacking the arguer.

But I think you're projecting that onto more atheists than you realize. You are partially responsible for bringing emotion into it, and so you're likely to get an emotional reaction. I don't think you totally understand that many atheists see a difference between the bible as history/philosophy .... and proof for god. They are not the same "evidence" wise. You are the one equating them together incorrectly. I'm not saying atheists don't do it also, but you are not immune. If you separate agendas and keep them to the point, I think you'll find a completely different way of communicating with people concerning the bible. If you want to prove God, expect other types of arguments. If you want to prove the accuracy of the bible apart from that, argue differently. Does that make sense?
 
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...

There is no difference between any kind of Christianity and pagan teachings,in my view.All primitive superstition and balderdash.Please stop quoting the bible at us,most of us here believe it is a work of fiction.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Then how do you know you have the One and Only Real TruthTM?
Click to expand...

Do you think that if you find truth that you have to measure it by contemplation of every other possibility in existence from the history of mankind?

So do I. As much as possible. I have investigated Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto and Taoism to the point where I am satisfied that they all have bits of wisdom but they are not comparable to the truth of the Bible. I have read the Dhammapada, and contemplated the Four Noble Truths. I have seen the influence of Dante, Milton, Socrates, Plato in Christianity and have rejected them. I have read the Analects of Confucius, The Bhagavad-gita, the Qu'ran, the Pirque Aboth, the Nihongi, the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu.

Hokulele said:
I would see how much of each one is relevant to the questions I have personally, and see how much of each one is only relevant to their time and place. I would see how much of each one contradicts the other. I would see how much of each one contradicts other sources of information (such as cosmology, biology, political science, economics, etc.).
Click to expand...

Good for you.

Hokulele said:
What I would not do is assume either is the One and Only Real TruthTM without crash testing the ideas it puts forth.
Click to expand...

But you would assume that I have.

Hokulele said:
Personally, I do not believe any one philosophy has got it all right, properly understood or not.
Click to expand...

The Bible isn't a philosophy, though. And it doesn't have it all right in that it has everything. It isn't a science book but it is accurate and in line with proved science. It isn't an instruction manual on mechanics or computer technology. It is the word of Jehovah God which proves itself to anyone who is really interested in the truth it does offer.
 
David Henson said:
The claimant, in this case, is the grossly misunderstood and misrepresented Bible.
Click to expand...

I have read the bible cover to cover twice,and some of it was very unpleasant reading,especially the bits written by the Bronze Age tribesmen.I understood it well enough.
 
Cavemonster said:
Do you have an informed opinion on magic wands as described in the Harry Potter series?

More importantly, do you think such an opinion has any bearing on the real world?
Click to expand...

So you spend a great deal of your spare time argueing with something that has no bearing on the real world?
 
David Henson said:
So do I. As much as possible. I have investigated Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto and Taoism to the point where I am satisfied that they all have bits of wisdom but they are not comparable to the truth of the Bible. I have read the Dhammapada, and contemplated the Four Noble Truths. I have seen the influence of Dante, Milton, Socrates, Plato in Christianity and have rejected them. I have read the Analects of Confucius, The Bhagavad-gita, the Qu'ran, the Pirque Aboth, the Nihongi, the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu.
Click to expand...

What a bloody waste of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom