Without a soul, life is a bunch of chemical reactions and cause-and-effect events that dictate what happens to you. Are you content with throwing away the idea of free-thought and free-will just to condemn religion for interpreting things into words designed to somewhat describe the happenings of the mind (not the brain)?

P.S. NG I loved that chapter.

__________________




Not mentioned in signature: Rebal <3
Lammiespace.

*Hip Thrust*

I don't see the soul to be associated with free-will and free-thought. And life is just a bunch of chemical reactions and cause-and-effect events.

__________________

GT: torwizzle

add for customs and all that crap.

So you have no problem denying free-thought and free-will?

__________________




Not mentioned in signature: Rebal <3
Lammiespace.

*Hip Thrust*

Huh? Deny free-will and free-thought? It wouldnt make any sense to do that. Can you even do that?

__________________

GT: torwizzle

add for customs and all that crap.

You can try.

The concept of a soul, in its varying interpretations, exists outside of religion; religion didn't create the soul.

The origin of the soul is derived from the philosophical quandry of what ignites life. It's not, originally, a spiritual thing, but rather an identification of a lifesource.

This soul, this energy, this ignition to consciousness and life, is perplexed and in many religions, specifically those of the Western "civilized" world, ill defined. If the soul is a possession, specific to an individual, then the question of what mechanism is mass producing, like a paper printer, these souls to all living beings. Human arrogance, I believe, again specific to the interpretation of the Western "civilized" hemisphere, assumes that the soul inside every body is its own, unique to that individual. These souls, then, once the body has passed, must go somewhere, since the entity and nature of the soul is, as defined, indestructable and as a lifesource is not subject to dying.

From there, religious influence proposes that the soul leaves the body and transcends into some form of after-life. Billions of souls, transcending over the entire timespan of human existence, gather somewhere.

Hence the shortage of chairs.

A more reasonable interpretation of the soul is that of the soul being an energy which produces life; the energy derives from nature, and the soul, the lifesource, is simply another part of nature. There is a finite amount of energy nature has provided us, but the finite amount is suffice. As our body dies, the lifesource escapes our body and enters another lifeless container, thus producing life.

Like a seed in soil.

Now, if we accept that the soul has some recognition, memory, or any form of consciousness, then it follows and aligns with the interpretation of past lives, or reincarnation, a common belief of Eastern civilization.

Human arrogance, again, interpretes and assumes that this lifesource, dubbed our soul, is unique to human beings alone; some venture to assume it pertains to nonhuman animals as well (this includes sea life). Hence, in many reincarnation understandings, people believe [or desire] to be reincarnated as a bird, or a whale, or a platypus.

Apparently nobody wanted to be a Dodo.

But this natural lifesource is existent in all things which are living, including plant life.

Many religions deny that animals have a soul, and there is no "doggy heaven."

Many more religions deny plant life has a soul, and there is no "Sunflower heaven."

But if our soul is simply an ignition, a lifesource, then all things living must also have a soul. And if this lifesource is derived directly from nature (we could delve further and discuss the soul of nature; that is, what lifesource gave the lifesource we live off of) then guess what?

We're already in Heaven!

Hurray.

__________________

There you go niceguy, thats what i was looking for. The concept that religion makes about the soul is one that I don't like at all. Ive always hated of thinking that only humans can have souls, thats very big-headed in my opinion. I've never really discussed the soul, nor know that much about it. It never really occured to me, since I was raised christian, I assumed that the soul was a religious term. Thanks for the enlightenment.

__________________

GT: torwizzle

add for customs and all that crap.

That's what I'm here for.

I think.

__________________

Soul is a spiritual term and has no useful application as it is intangible.

__________________

http://www.myspace.com/enominipatri
MSN: E_Nomini_Patri@hotmail.com
AIM: MLG ENominiPatri
GT: RVG E Nomini

It has use, but only because such use was assigned to it. It can be done without, as with many things, but that doesn't imply uselessness. Spirituality's usefulness is contingent.

__________________