What Is The Soul?

[Trent Wray]

Many things. It's overall harmony, prophecy, accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness. That is my opinion. My observations, the result of my intense study.

This answers some of my previous question. But I still don't see what is "in it for you" so to speak to trust God. Is it the idea of an eternal life? If so, do you think you have it absolutely, or can you "lose it"? If you can lose it, then how so? Can you give an example of how you might lose your eternal life, or God's favor, etc?

 

[dafydd]

The Bible teaches that 144,000 people will go to heaven in spirit form immediately upon death and the majority of the faithful will, upon resurrection, live forever on earth. The rest will suffer eternal destruction. Hell is an old English word translated from the Hebrew sheol and Greek hades which means the unseen resting place of the dead. The common grave. The earth was created for man, heaven was created for the spirit creatures. (Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Jeremiah 27:5 / 1 Corinthians 15:50)



No. I'm simply stating that in a very basic sense the soul is the blood or the life (and all that involves) of any breathing creature. God also has a soul but obviously no blood. It just happens that blood is very important to the life of living creatures. The blood and life are sacred to Jehovah, so he is very protective of it.

The Bible doesn't state the existence of something that remains after death other than the memory of a person's life in the mind of God though that person is in the grave where there is no consciousness, pain or joy etc. There is, from this, the possibility of resurrection to life everlasting in paradise earth without sin, sickness, aging or death.

Of all relgious maniacs,Jehova's Witnesses are among the worst sufferers from the condition.

 

[Sun Countess]

Before I answer your questions - I just finished responding to your last post which informed me quite clearly that you weren't interested in the Bible. What has made that change?

I find people's beliefs fascinating, as I also stated. A new and different interpretation isn't going to convince me that the book is anything more than fiction, but the mental gymnastics of biblical apologists of various stripes is always a fun diversion.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yes, it means that I am no longer a practicing homosexual.

There is nothing more pathetic than a self-hating homosexual who denies himself and embraces the bigoted delusions of his oppressor to find social acceptance.

You make me sick, you coward.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If by that you mean that I am intending to establish the Bible itself is true because of any of this, no. That isn't my intention. It has no immediate bearing on whether or not the Bible is true or anything else in the Bible is true by default. It simply allows one to more accurately evaluate the Bible and compare it to apostate Christianity.

I have little doubt that the actual early first century apocalyptic itinerant preacher known as Jeshua ben Joseph would consider pretty much all forms of modern Christianity to be practicing a corrupted version of his teachings. What little we know of this man suggests that he taught that the apocalypse, or "revealing" of the Jewish Messiah was imminent and that this Messiah, a descendant of King David, would be a great military and political leader who would raise a powerful army, expel the enemies of Israel (primarily the Romans) and reestablish Israel as a strong sovereign state. Jeshua ben Joseph most probably belonged to a later, more radical interpretation of apocalypticism that expected the Messiah to be granted supernatural powers by God and that the dead would be raised to be judged, with the unrighteous being destroyed and the righteous being granted eternal life in perfect bodies in God's kingdom on Earth. We don't even know for sure if Jeshua ben Joseph claimed to be the Messiah or was merely preparing the way for the Messiah. What we do know is that the people who wrote the books that eventually came to be collected as the New Testament canon never met Jesus and that they had some very different ideas about who Jesus was and what his message was. Even the idea of the virgin birth seems to have been a later invention among some of the many versions of Christianity practiced in the first few centuries after the execution of Jesus by the Romans.

You may believe that you know the true form of Christianity, but to many of those on the outside you give no more reason to believe that your interpretation is any more true than any of the others.

 

[paximperium]

Now this is way more interesting.

 

[David Henson]

This is a fast moving thread.

David Henson, well done for keeping up and thanks for answering.

You are most welcome, I'm doing the best I can, though soon I will have to move on the the Deluge thread. I think it has simmered long enough.

What bits of the now dead person are copied into the spirit creatures?

I'm guessing nobody knows how the copying process happens and I don't recall a copying process being mentioned in the bible, so that won't help.

This copying, I'm assuming, helps assure that deceased Fred Corpseguy is still Fred Corpseguy when he gets to heaven.

Yeah, that's pretty much it as far as we can tell.

Paul said: "This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1*Corinthians 15:50-52)

When all things in this system has passed, and the question of Jehovah's sovereignty is settled, the question that Satan put to man in deceiving him is answered and it is painfully obvious that man made a mistake in thinking he could decided for himself what was good and what was bad, some will not die but survive into a new system. A new heaven and earth. Only after all of the 144,000 are sealed. Changed from physical into spirit beings in an instant upon their death.

Since the purpose of this is so that they can Judge with Christ Jesus, knowing that which Jesus Christ and Jehovah God doesn't, namely what it is like to live under sin. To know sin, implies that they will have their memories and personality intact when leaving their bodies and becoming spirit in form.

 

[Sun Countess]

Why not just continue to accept it as a work of fiction? My only interest in the bible is the disconnect I get when I realize that people accept it as somehow truthful, or when I realize that people actually worship one of the most despicable characters ever written as loving or morally above reproach.

Why would I continue to accept it as a work of fiction when I don't think that it is a work of fiction? Or were you talking about yourself? In that case that is up to you.

Quickly, because I'm at work , but I was referring to the time that you were an atheist. As an atheist, you would have considered the bible a work of fiction, just as surely as you considered any other mythology a work of fiction. I'm asking what made you change your mind, when you said that you realized the bible was exactly as it claimed (i.e. non-fiction, the word of god).

 

[Trent Wray]

Quickly, because I'm at work , but I was referring to the time that you were an atheist. As an atheist, you would have considered the bible a work of fiction, just as surely as you considered any other mythology a work of fiction. I'm asking what made you change your mind, when you said that you realized the bible was exactly as it claimed (i.e. non-fiction, the word of god).

This is what I keep trying to understand ... his own personal reasons. This is what is relevant and important to me, because it's speaking of the practicality of why a person does what they do, regardless of whether or not the bible is accurate.

I think he's ignoring me now but this explains some I believe:

When I was a skeptic who had an unread Bible that I had been given by my mother who had been given it years before by the JWs I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it because I hated Christianity. I lived out in the woods where the JWs never came. When I began to see how the Bible was exactly what it says it was, that night, for the first time, I prayed to Jehovah to send the JWs to me if they had the truth. The next morning I prayed again and while I was praying they came to the door. A scheduled Bible study of theirs in the nearby town had dodged them and they figured since they never work the territory and they are there they would knock on some doors. Mine was the first.

You and I can rationalize that away.

 

[paximperium]

Quickly, because I'm at work , but I was referring to the time that you were an atheist. As an atheist, you would have considered the bible a work of fiction, just as surely as you considered any other mythology a work of fiction. I'm asking what made you change your mind, when you said that you realized the bible was exactly as it claimed (i.e. non-fiction, the word of god).

This is ultimately the question. David believes the Bible's stories are compelling.

He fails to realize how preaching and regurgitating from it is not compelling to non-believers.

 

[Trent Wray]

Did not read the entire thread, so if this has been covered, yada yada yada.

This is one of the better descriptions of the "soul." At least in my humble agnostic opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duende_(art)

This is an excellent reference I think that got overlooked. For those who don't know what "duende" is, it's basically that experience a person has when they get "moved" by something in a strong fashion, usually via art/music/dance/etc. Like when you see a person performing a dance a certain way and get a chill up your spine, and your bp rises, or you have one of those "ah-ha" moments that puts you in that ephemoral type of mood, where your walking on sunshine, etc. Or you are looking at art, and it effects you physically, and you "get in the zone."

Some people refer to the "soul of the music" due to this feeling/emotion/sensational experience phenomena.

I'm not sure this would apply to this thread as far as the blood=soul .... BUT .... I'm curious if David considers this kind of experience hinting towards attributes concerning the "spirit"/pneuma. Certainly the extreme expression of duende is akin to revelatory experiences some claim to feel intensely.

 

[David Henson]

So a spirit creature is simply an invisible animal?

No. The science differs from the Bible not only in that it doesn't, uh, acknowledge? spirit creatures but in that spirit creatures as well as men, unlike animals, were created in his likeness.

These mean?

A free moral agent is a being that has it within its own power to decide what is best for it and act accordingly. Not a sort of robbot or puppet. Corruptible I think you know the meaning of, well, both of these but are looking for an elaboration on my part? Satan was, for example, created a perfect spirit being but was corrupted by his own selfish desire. He was placed in the garden to protect the first human couple from the harsh environment of a newly created earth outside of that garden.

These aren't really characteristics. What are their physical traits?

They don't have physical traits, as such, but they are, like us, created in God's image or likeness, so they would appear somewhat human if we could see them. They are often described using figurative attributes such as animal characteristics to convey the nature or purpose of the spirit creature much like we would do the same to a nation. For courage the lion, speed the leopard, strength the bull etc.

No, we don't accept that, because the Bible is the source of the claims about spirit creatures in the first place. You can't use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible.

Again, I don't want to "prove" anything. If I want to know what the Bible really says about something my main reference is the Bible.

Also not acceptable, because there is absolutely zero evidence that ghosts or demons exist.

If we have all of the evidence for everything that does exist then we can put away the search for knowledge. Science would only be dogma.

 

[David Henson]

There is nothing more pathetic than a self-hating homosexual who denies himself and embraces the bigoted delusions of his oppressor to find social acceptance.

You make me sick, you coward.

Thats pretty big talk, there, little britches!

I don't hate nor deny myself. I have no oppressors nor need of social acceptance. Do you think that if I did I would be here telling everyone of my homosexuality and completely unconcerned about your having branded me a coward?

 

[cienaños]

Thats pretty big talk, there, little britches!

I don't hate nor deny myself. I have no oppressors nor need of social acceptance. Do you think that if I did I would be here telling everyone of my homosexuality and completely unconcerned about your having branded me a coward?

Mr Henson,

I do hope to get your thoughts on "Duende" if at all possible, and how it relates to your understanding of the soul. Resurrection is addressed in the following article, towards the end:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980622/the_arts.appreciation.th29.html


But, I am also curious about this other thing. The homosexual thing. Did I read correctly that you are a non-practicing homosexual? Going off the tone of your posts, would I be correct in assuming your position to be leaning more towards the "monk-like" aspect of abstaining as opposed to the self-loathing avoidance version?

Regards

 

[Nonpareil]

No. The science differs from the Bible not only in that it doesn't, uh, acknowledge? spirit creatures but in that spirit creatures as well as men, unlike animals, were created in his likeness.

So they're invisible people.

A free moral agent is a being that has it within its own power to decide what is best for it and act accordingly. Not a sort of robbot or puppet.

There's no evidence for free will, either.

Corruptible I think you know the meaning of, well, both of these but are looking for an elaboration on my part? Satan was, for example, created a perfect spirit being but was corrupted by his own selfish desire. He was placed in the garden to protect the first human couple from the harsh environment of a newly created earth outside of that garden.

I'm looking for an objective definition of "corrupt" that has some basis outside of the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove the claims made in the Bible.

They don't have physical traits, as such, but they are, like us, created in God's image or likeness

So they have physical traits.

Again, I don't want to "prove" anything. If I want to know what the Bible really says about something my main reference is the Bible.

Then you're only here to tell us what the Bible says about stuff? What makes you think that we care unless you have the evidence to back it up? What the Bible claims don't mean diddly if you can't prove it to be true.

If we have all of the evidence for everything that does exist then we can put away the search for knowledge. Science would only be dogma.

Argument ad futuris. Saying that we might come up with proof in the future is nothing to base a case on.

 

[Paulhoff]

No. The science differs from the Bible not only in that it doesn't, uh, acknowledge? spirit creatures but in that spirit creatures as well as men, unlike animals, were created in his likeness.

Yes, science does not acknowledge things without proof, next.

Satan was, for example, created a perfect spirit being but was corrupted by his own selfish desire. He was placed in the garden to protect the first human couple from the harsh environment of a newly created earth outside of that garden.

This Satan wasn't perfect if it became corrupeted.

They don't have physical traits, as such, but they are, like us, created in God's image or likeness, so they would appear somewhat human if we could see them. They are often described using figurative attributes such as animal characteristics to convey the nature or purpose of the spirit creature much like we would do the same to a nation. For courage the lion, speed the leopard, strength the bull etc.

More magical thinking, do you have any proof outside of you head for this.

Again, I don't want to "prove" anything. If I want to know what the Bible really says about something my main reference is the Bible.

One reason would be you can't prove it, the bible is not a proof.

If we have all of the evidence for everything that does exist then we can put away the search for knowledge. Science would only be dogma.

Science would not be dogmatic if it had the proof.

Paul

 

[dafydd]

As a then practicing homosexual

Does that mean that you're an expert at it now?

 

[Lucian]

<snip> Hell is an old English word translated from the Hebrew sheol and Greek hades which means the unseen resting place of the dead. The common grave. The earth was created for man, heaven was created for the spirit creatures. (Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Jeremiah 27:5 / 1 Corinthians 15:50)

No. Old English (and, in general, Germanic) "hell" antedates the conversion to Christianity and, therefore, was independent from Sheol, gehenna, Hades or any other Jewish, Greek or Christian concept of the afterlife. The pagan Germanic peoples had their own concepts about Hel and the afterlife. Only after the conversion was the word applied to the Christian concept of a place of punishment for the dead. You may consider this an apostate, non-biblical understanding of "hell," but it was the one that had already developed by the time the English had converted.

By the way, I notice that, while you make careful distinctions between the biblical words for "soul" and "spirit," you happily ignore the history of their use in English. Like "hell," "soul" is a native English word the antedates the conversion. In Old English, the words "sawol" and "gast" ("ghost," but with a much broader meaning*) overlapped to a large extent and were frequently used interchangeably. In Middle English, "soul," "ghost" and the Latinate borrowing "spirit" all overlap. To a degree, the three still do overlap. For instance, people still talk about contacting the "spirits" of the dead. Many people would call these spirits "ghosts," and some would no doubt define them as the souls of the dead. So, I really don't see how the distinction you are making between the English words is all that relevant.

*"Gast" was often used to translate "spiritus;" it could also refer to angels and demons.

 

[cienaños]

Does that mean that you're an expert at it now?

Well. Just to address the nature of the question...

I was a "then non-masturbator" before I hit puberty. Today, I do not consider myself an expert in that field.

 

[I Ratant]

Well. Just to address the nature of the question...

I was a "then non-masturbator" before I hit puberty. Today, I do not consider myself an expert in that field.

.
Keep practicing.
It gets better with age.