What Is The Soul?

[devnull]

i never ever understood how someone can belive that stuff.

Im with you on that one. This is why I find it so hard to formulate questions for them - its like trying to question the wino on the corner about nuclear physics. I just can't seem to find the right phrasing for the question.

 

[devnull]

God also has a soul but obviously no blood.

Awww crap, so you just changed the definition *again*???

Seriously David, make up your mind.

 

[Brian-M]

Quite a bit. Even though you say that it means "blood", you also state that the soul goes on after death and ascends into heaven. Blood quite clearly does not do this, so even you are using at least a portion of the "philosophical" definition of the soul.

Actually, he's saying the spirit goes to heaven, and the spirit is not the same thing as the soul, even though most people consider the two words to be synonymous.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't mind your asking. Yes, it means that I am no longer a practicing homosexual.

I find it very sad that you would let superstitious dogma convince you that there is something wrong with your homosexuality. You speak of it like a recovering alcoholic, like something harmful that you overcame.

 

[I Ratant]

I find it very sad that you would let superstitious dogma convince you that there is something wrong with your homosexuality. You speak of it like a recovering alcoholic, like something harmful that you overcame.

.
It's another example of implanting guilt, where none is existent.
Religions do that well... QED.

 

[Paulhoff]

Actually, he's saying the spirit goes to heaven, and the spirit is not the same thing as the soul, even though most people consider the two words to be synonymous.

Yea, all those dummies out there saving their souls for heaven.

Paul

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Thats pretty big talk, there, little britches!

Oh! Did I get your attention? What are you going to do about it?

I don't hate nor deny myself. I have no oppressors nor need of social acceptance.

Then why did you join a religion that treats homosexuals like pariahs; abominations that need to be put to death?

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?

As a matter of fact, I do. You have a mandate to fulfill: convert us godless heathen to the Lawd. As long as you do that and go through the motions and act just like they do, then people will love you no one will call you a "fag" or a "queer." You'll be just like they are: "straight," normal" and hopefully one of the elite who will get to go to Happy Jesus Land when the world comes to any end which should be annnnnnny second... any second... it's going to happen, just you wait...

You let a bunch of medieval-minded dullards talk you into hating your sexual identity on the grounds that it upsets an invisible man who lives in the sky? It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Oh, what the hell, I'll laugh anyway!



Of course, the whole "I was a gay/atheist until a found JEEEEEZ-us" is a line we hear quite often. It's nothing more than a cheap attempt at witnessing by trying to establish false common ground with the target.

So which are you? A coward or a liar?

 

[Brian-M]

Before he appeared to the 500 he appeared to the 12, including 3 of the writers of the gospels. There are your eyewitnesses. In the Hebrew law in order to condemn a man to death you needed at least 2 witnesses. You have three.

Okay, I'm going to have to call you on this one. In what texts, in The Bible or elsewhere, do any of the writers clearly claim to have seen this happen with their own eyes? Just claiming something happened and that lots of people saw it happen is not the same thing as claiming to have seen it yourself.

That is an excellent point, and if it were not for the common usage of the word soul in most translations I would be doing just that.

That's causing some confusion on this thread. By using the word soul, people tend to assume that you mean soul even if you don't.

Blood is the soul. Leviticus 17:14 / Genesis 9:5-6. The soul is the blood or in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) because it is so important to life.

Being in the blood is not the same as being the blood. A subtle, but important distinction.

The Hebrew dam and the Greek haima are translated blood. Why not just call it blood? If it is said that knowledge is power or money is power it doesn't mean that we have to abandon one word for another.

Referring to money as power, or knowledge as power are figures of speech, not literal. Power can be derived from having large amounts of money, but money itself is not power. Knowledge can provide a means of gaining power but is itself not power.

Could it be that referring to nephesh as blood was also just a figure of speech?

Discovering that the Bible was exactly what it claimed to be in no way obligated me to worship or appreciate Jehovah God.

I think we can all agree to the sentiment. But exactly what does The Bible claim to be, and exactly how did you discover that the claim was true?

What about the bible led you to believe it was exactly what it claimed to be? Certainly not the genocide and misogyny.....

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

That makes me wonder if we're talking about the same Bible here. I don't think The Bible rates well on any one of those categories.

On this forum and others atheist tell me that they are not interested in the Bible and that's fine, but is their harping on it only an indication that they want me to shut up or that they are not interested in it?

Neither. It's their way of telling you that they don't accept truth-claims based on scripture. In general, if you want to claim that X is objectively true, regardless of whether or not the claim for X is based on The Bible you need to support the claim with other sources, preferably empirically tested sources. For example...

They are free moral agents, corruptible, have feelings, bodies, capable of humility, have names, languages, voices, will, personality, limitations, feeling, and spirit (mental inclination). they are sexless, that is without gender. Scriptural references to all of that upon request.

Do you have any independent reliable research or repeatable experimental results to support the claim that spirit creatures have these characteristics?

I happen to believe that atheists are either uninformed or are politically and or socially frustrated in a predominately theistic society.

Many atheists are uninformed, but most who actively declare themselves to be atheist aren't. I don't think there are many people claiming to be atheist as an expression of social/political frustration.

But I also happen to believe that believers or unbelievers should at least be given the opportunity to be aware of the possibility that they are mislead or uninformed. If you are not interested ignore me.

I am interested (if I wasn't, I would have been ignoring you already). Please tell me how you feel unbelievers are being mislead or left uninformed.

 

[Brian-M]

Of course, the whole "I was a gay/atheist until a found JEEEEEZ-us" is a line we hear quite often.

But it's fun to parody.
http://creamybeamy.comicgenesis.com/d/20070903.html
http://creamybeamy.comicgenesis.com/d/20070904.html

 

[Robin]

What soul is without sin?

Ez 18:21 says that the wicked man may turn away from sin and live.

If, in the scriptures you gave, the soul dieing means that the person is dieing and Jesus is without sin and yet died isn't that Biblical support? (Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34, AV)

I don't like to give away the ending, especially over Easter, but he got better three days later.

So, no, that is not Biblical support.

 

[David Henson]

Awww crap, so you just changed the definition *again*???

Seriously David, make up your mind.

I understand that the atheist sense of reality seemingly depends upon the idea that if you repeat something often enough it is true as long as the atheists believe it but that doesn't jive with me, dig?

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

 

[David Henson]

Ez 18:21 says that the wicked man may turn away from sin and live.

Yes. Resurrected. All sin, so all die. Those who turn away from sin as much as is possible have the possibility of resurrection where death is no more.

I don't like to give away the ending, especially over Easter, but he got better three days later.

So, no, that is not Biblical support.

No, he didn't get better, he came back in another body which is why it was difficult for some of the people who he had known to recognize him. If he simply got better what then became of him and what point would it have been to sacrifice a body that you are going to take back in three days? That isn't the way it was done.

 

[paximperium]

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

So David has changed the commonly used definition of soul to spirit and renamed the soul, blood. Wow that so deep dude.

 

[dafydd]

I understand that the atheist sense of reality seemingly depends upon the idea that if you repeat something often enough it is true as long as the atheists believe it but that doesn't jive with me, dig?

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

Refusing a blood transfusion for a dying child because of some crackpot religious belief is insanity.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

The problem here is that you have stated that God has a soul yet no blood. This is a contradiction as you are stating that soul and blood are equivalents, or, that soul is defined as something within blood. Could you please reconcile this?

We can look at this via modus ponens:

If one has a soul, then one has blood.
It is the case that God has a soul.
Therefore, it is the case that God has blood.

But you're saying this is a false conclusion, while all I've done is use the premises you have supplied.

 

[DC]

Thats it.

so Blood= the soul.....

didnt read all the posts, and maybe it was asked already.

when you get a blood infusion in Hospital, do you get a new sould then? do you have then the soul of another human beeing, where the blood is originated from?

and do the 2 souls mix with eachother?

 

[devnull]

I understand that the atheist sense of reality seemingly depends upon the idea that if you repeat something often enough it is true as long as the atheists believe it but that doesn't jive with me, dig?

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

But you said god doesnt have blood, but does have a soul?

logic fail.

Also, leave your obvious transference at home.

 

[paximperium]

so Blood= the soul.....

didnt read all the posts, and maybe it was asked already.

when you get a blood infusion in Hospital, do you get a new sould then? do you have then the soul of another human beeing, where the blood is originated from?

and do the 2 souls mix with eachother?

Nah. He's already stated that the soul uh blood, has some magical thing that for some weird reason yahweh finds appealing and that all blood actually belongs to god. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.

 

[DC]

Nah. He's already stated that the soul uh blood, has some magical thing that for some weird reason yahweh finds appealing and that all blood actually belongs to god. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.

thanks. yes it sounds as stupid as it is

 

[Cainkane1]

I understand that the atheist sense of reality seemingly depends upon the idea that if you repeat something often enough it is true as long as the atheists believe it but that doesn't jive with me, dig?

The blood is the soul, the life. In a basic sense. It isn't immortal according to the Bible. It isn't the spirit.

Actually I don't dig. Atheists are open to new ideas and most atheists say anything is possible including the possibility of a God its just that we need evidence to base our beliefs on and the bible doesn't provide any said evidence. Atheists are open minded to new things religious conservatives are not. Dig?