Does the human soul exist?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

1.  If that were the case wouldn't it still be in Hebrew and Aramaic? Wouldn't there only be one version? A little digging has different versions using different words in some places. In addition just when each book was written and what region also affects the tone in earlier versions. The most popular version used in the Americas is the King James version or one derived from it which smooths out some of the tone but it has also been found to have a few drastic changes made according to his version of what it should be.

 

2.  I think this is probably true for many religions. Humanism seems to be the base for this era.

 

1.  I take it as a given that all scripture -- ALL scripture -- was produced by people.  How odd that God -- All powerful, All knowing, etc. etc. -- should need human scribes.  Would be confounded by translation problems.

 

Yes.  Translation problems.  Consider how different translations of the opening lines of Genesis change everything.

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and the Earth."

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

"In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth."

 

Just the opening lines.  A serious comparison would be a huge undertaking.  Each minor difference makes a huge difference.  

 

2.  Humanism is Atheism with philosophy.  Atheism is not religion.  I would be pleased to argue that point.  I don't think this is the thread for it.  

[AmberLF]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

1.  I take it as a given that all scripture -- ALL scripture -- was produced by people.  How odd that God -- All powerful, All knowing, etc. etc. -- should need human scribes.  Would be confounded by translation problems.

 

Yes.  Translation problems.  Consider how different translations of the opening lines of Genesis change everything.

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and the Earth."

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

"In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth."

 

Just the opening lines.  A serious comparison would be a huge undertaking.  Each minor difference makes a huge difference.  

 

2.  Humanism is Atheism with philosophy.  Atheism is not religion.  I would be pleased to argue that point.  I don't think this is the thread for it.  

No argument on on the first point but on the second point Humanism is a philosophy in and of itself, as much as Atheism is and can be applied to it, but also can be applied to religion or lived as a spirituality. You are right though, it can be argued elsewhere.

 

Back to the human soul. I am not sure there is any more solid, undeniable proof of it than there is any deity or opposing discussions wouldn't get so heated on either topic. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

No argument on on the first point but on the second point Humanism is a philosophy in and of itself, as much as Atheism is and can be applied to it, but also can be applied to religion or lived as a spirituality. You are right though, it can be argued elsewhere.

 

Back to the human soul. I am not sure there is any more solid, undeniable proof of it than there is any deity or opposing discussions wouldn't get so heated on either topic. 

 

The structure of the board is still being established.  I'm trying to avoid gumming things up.  If we can figure out where to take that, I will be happy to resume.

 

Regarding the soul -- we can include the rest of Nature.  If Humans have souls, so do the other creatures.  That is a big if.

I don't know that souls exist.  I don't know that souls don't exist.  The objective evidence is lacking.  In this matter, I am firmly Agnostic.

 

I am firmly persuaded that Humanity is not outside of the Natural Order.  Either we all have souls, or none of us have souls.  

 

I also do not mean to limit this to animal kind.  It seems to me that trees are as much entitled to a soul as I am.  

[mererdog]

On 7/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, Rev. Calli said:

Typically, hard core Christian fundamentalists take the view

Stereotypes are rarely helpful.

 

[mererdog]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This should appeal to your sense of humor.  Sometimes, all the extremists are mistaken.   

It is my firm belief that we are all mistaken. Not about everything, but about most things. 

[Rev. Calli]

33 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Stereotypes are rarely helpful.

 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

That's why I used typically and not always.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

It is my firm belief that we are all mistaken. Not about everything, but about most things. 

 

 

"Most things"?  Well, many things.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, AmberLF said:

There is enough evidence in studies that support it helps. There is a pretty strong mind-body connection that indicates stress can complicate or slow healing if not dealt with in healthy ways. There is also plenty of evidence that massage and other touch therapies can help relieve the stresses, stimulate muscle and nerve responses, help with blood circulation, and allow the body to heal. Is it an end all, be all method of healing to be used alone? I would say no. But if it helps and the person in need welcomes such a therapy, it does seem to help quite a bit. 

 

Responses vary.  I've also seen people freak out over the energy and  get upset.  Some people are not ready to have their ideas of reality challenged.  

 

Yes.  I said that.  The Agnostic thinks that people need to be exposed to more reality, than they know about.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

Stereotypes are rarely helpful.

 

 

Sometimes, stereotypes are based on reality.  Not always.  Sometimes.  

[mererdog]

On 7/17/2017 at 9:31 AM, Rev. Calli said:

That's why I used typically and not always

Stereotypes work by exploiting flaws in how we perceive averages. They exist as distorted representations of what is typical. You see mostly black balls, so you assume that most balls are black. But you have not seen most balls, and the black balls are more noticeable to you than the white balls- so your assumption is based on faulty data. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:00 AM, mererdog said:

It is my firm belief that we are all mistaken. Not about everything, but about most things. 

You might be mistaken about that...but if you are mistaken about us being mistaken, then you aren't mistaken.  But if you aren't mistaken, they since you said we are mostly mistaken, it must be a mistake, yes?

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

But if you aren't mistaken, they since you said we are mostly mistaken, it must be a mistake, yes?

The Liars Paradox doesnt exist in the real world because of that "mostly" word. Even if we take as a given that 99.9999% of what I say is wrong, you still have to watch out for that little bit of truth creeping in....

Edited July 18, 2017 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

I was just being humorous...well, maybe failing at being humorous lol.

[mererdog]

Really?

Edited July 18, 2017 by mererdog

[hesedlove]

 

Concerning the soul. There are some things human intelligence will never be able to unravel simply because we are human.  Therefore, it makes little difference whether the universe came into being spontaneously or was created by God as no human-being was present to witness it or partake in its construction.  Human-beings are not separate from the universe but an integral-part of the very phenomenon they are constantly trying to understand but with insufficient knowledge or creative ability to go beyond “wondering.”  In other words they are not on the outside looking in but on the inside looking out and it will always be that way.  Can a tree explain itself or a river its chemical composition?  No.  Therefore, whether or not human-beings have a soul will forever be a question of faith, speculation or intuition rather than of knowledge, fact and certainty.  My own gut feeling tells me there is more to life than meets the eye so I know where my confidence lies.  I have no proof either way of course but neither does anyone else nor will they ever.   However, the search will go on I’m sure and it is a fascinating one.    

[Key]

9 minutes ago, hesedlove said:

 

Concerning the soul. There are some things human intelligence will never be able to unravel simply because we are human.  Therefore, it makes little difference whether the universe came into being spontaneously or was created by God as no human-being was present to witness it or partake in its construction.  Human-beings are not separate from the universe but an integral-part of the very phenomenon they are constantly trying to understand but with insufficient knowledge or creative ability to go beyond “wondering.”  In other words they are not on the outside looking in but on the inside looking out and it will always be that way.  Can a tree explain itself or a river its chemical composition?  No.  Therefore, whether or not human-beings have a soul will forever be a question of faith, speculation or intuition rather than of knowledge, fact and certainty.  My own gut feeling tells me there is more to life than meets the eye so I know where my confidence lies.  I have no proof either way of course but neither does anyone else nor will they ever.   However, the search will go on I’m sure and it is a fascinating one.    

 

 

 

Nicely stated.

I feel the complexity of the human mind may not allow for humans to fully grasp all the knowledge it would need to understand everything in the universe anyway, including if there is a God or a soul.

The definition of a soul alone can change from one individual to the next.  While some agree with others on one definition, others may disagree saying it isn't specific enough or too broad, or because of some small semantics.

I agree there is much in the world we do not understand, or have yet to even experience, if at all. Much has to be taken on faith and theory, whether it be in celestial beings or dimensional planes, or something else.

There are some who think our soul is simply our consciousness that is unique in humans, as we are more aware of it than other animals. I tend to think it may be true to an extent, but only a piece of a much bigger puzzle. I can't explain, nor fully define it myself. 

[cuchulain]

I GREATLY fear the argument that humankind isn't capable of knowing...because if we aren't capable, what's the point of further exploring?  No...I reject this as an exploration killing argument.  I believe there is no bounds to what humans can learn, eventually.  I do not know whether the question will be solved in my lifetime, or another.

Can you imagine if this argument had been heeded by the earliest scientists, such people who discovered the world is round, the earth revolves around the sun, that bacteria cause illness?

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I GREATLY fear the argument that humankind isn't capable of knowing...because if we aren't capable, what's the point of further exploring?

Trying to do the impossible is the only way to learn what is possible.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Trying to do the impossible is the only way to learn what is possible.

 

 

That's nice, but the "knowledge" quest here is God and souls.  Do you still think such "knowledge" is possible?  

[mererdog]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

That's nice, but the "knowledge" quest here is God and souls.  Do you still think such "knowledge" is possible?  

I have no idea. I do not even know where you would begin. I also don't have a strong desire to know, so I'm not real motivated to put much effort into finding out. I'm afraid if society relied on guys like me for scientific progress, there would be very little scientific progress.