permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Back to God Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Back to God" Watch "Back to God" New topic
Author

Back to God

Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Was reading totally scientific book, and ran into an interesting fact that relates to our previous discussion about God.
Genesis 1:30
-- American Standard Edition
and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so
-- "New" International Edition
and to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so
-- Darby Translation
and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so
-- Бытие 1:30, Russian translation
А всем зверям земным, и всем птицам небесным, и всякому пресмыкающемуся по земле, в котором душа живая, дал Я всю зелень травную в пищу. И стало так
Notice bold text. In regular american translations of Genesis, creatures are referred to as having life. In Darby, Russian, and, according to Blavatsky book I was reading, in original text, they are said to have a soul. Which then has a totally different meaning, saying that not only humans, but all living creatures have souls
More to come...
Shura
[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Shura, which Blavatsky book are you reading? It is not the same as "totally scientific book"?
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Well, um, yeah, you are kinda-sorta right... :roll:
This or this Blavatsky... but it is as close to scientific theosophy as it gets...

Do you have something against scientising theosophy?
Shura
[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Well, I would rather use a bridge which I know was build based on some boring equations than on exciting mystic revelation. Other than that, I do not have any reasons to question Blavatsky's authority on "the creation of the universe, the evolution of humankind, and the primordial tradition underlying the various religions, mythologies and philosophies of the world".
This is a prejudice of mine I am particularly proud of - to ignore papers that fail Popper's demarcation criterion. Unfortunately religious and scientising theosophical papers all go right to this category.
"to all the beasts of the earth <...> I give every green plant for food." - whatever you say
----------------------
"As you probably guessed from the chapters so far, the answer to all our problems is XML."
"Web Service Facetplates". Wrox, 2002
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
All creatures have a soul but only humans have a divine soul. Genesis tells us that man was created in God's image. Do you really think that man looks like God? No, we have a divine soul just like God. That is what makes us in His image.
The word in question in this verse is "anima". here is the latin:
et cunctis animantibus terrae omnique volucri caeli et universis quae moventur in terra et in quibus est anima vivens ut habeant ad vescendum et factum est ita
"Anima" can mean soul but it can also mean life or breathing. This is what happens when scientists get involved with theology! :roll:


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
That's farely judgemental, don't you think? Why would one accept 2+2=4 as science, and call the fact that humans and animals have some non-material substance "pseudoscience"? The more I read about it (not only Blavatsy) the further I get away from "pure" science; too theoretical and often not applicable to real life.
Do you know what professions produced most people that switched from "science" to some sort of "pseudoscience"? Ironically, Mathematics and Philosophy. :roll:
Shura
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
That's farely judgemental, don't you think? Why would one accept 2+2=4 as science, and call the fact that humans and animals have some non-material substance "pseudoscience"? The more I read about it (not only Blavatsy) the further I get away from "pure" science; too theoretical and often not applicable to real life.
Do you know what professions produced most people that switched from "science" to some sort of "pseudoscience"? Ironically, Mathematics and Philosophy. :roll:
Shura
The reason that 2+2=4 is science is because it can be tested! I can pile up test after test of 2+2 and get 4 every time. How do I test for the presence of a soul? I am not surprised that philosophy and mathematics have the most converts to pseudoscience. Philosophy is hardly a science and mathematics is not a hard science. Stare at numbers long enough and you start to think that they must mean something.
:roll:
and call the fact that humans and animals have some non-material substance "pseudoscience"?
FACT? Where does that fact come from? Sounds like a mystical belief in the supernatural to me. What is the basis for this "fact"?
[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

That's farely judgemental, don't you think?

Seems like the right approach to the Old Testament.

Why would one accept 2+2=4 as science

Like Thomas said, that's not science, but math, and a rather fragile theory at that.

and call the fact that humans and animals have some non-material substance "pseudoscience"?

Personally, I think this has less to do with "science" than "acceptance." Who, by the way, asserts that the soul is non-material?

The more I read about it (not only Blavatsy) the further I get away from "pure" science; too theoretical and often not applicable to real life.

The sciences that come to mind for me are far from pure. The number of laws any one branch of science holds seems to be quite thin; the number of theories, corollaries, conjecturies, etc that follow are merely a disciplined approach to explaining observation, in many cases. As for 'applicability to real life,' one expects to hear this from an American.

Do you know what professions produced most people that switched from "science" to some sort of "pseudoscience"? Ironically, Mathematics and Philosophy. :roll:

That's very dramatic; can you offer some evidence to support it?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I am not surprised that philosophy and mathematics have the most converts to pseudoscience. Philosophy is hardly a science and mathematics is not a hard science.
Mathematics is not a science, it is a language, or, worse, a notation. In its soft form that deals with irregularities and fuzzy sets it morhps right into linguistics.
Philosophy is not a science at all. Both philosophy and mathematics are language games, the difference is that math defines rules it is playing by, and with philosophy there are no rules, each philosopher lays down his own.
[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
There we go:
Ludwig Wittgenstein. "Philosophical Investigations".
"464. My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense"
Still wonder why philosophers "switch from "science" to some sort of "pseudoscience" so easily?
Stu Glassman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: 91
Thomas Paul posted the Latin for the verse, however, the Latin is merely a translation of the Hebrew. The original Hebrew word is Nefesh, which translates to soul in English. Of course, nefesh is commonly used to mean life, so the point that Thomas Paul brought up is still valid.
-Stu
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
I 've got too many questions to answers... Let me try to do some first.
1. Thomas, what is a Divine Soul, as opposed to soul? Is it supposed to feel us (humans) superior to other life forms? Isn't that a bit selfish, egoistic and (not to mention ) a bit blind? I will have hard time to argue with you because I do not in any way share the same understanding of concept of God as taught by catholic church.
2. Science vs. pseudo-science... What is a true pseudo-science is medicine. Stomack ache? Take this pill, you'll be fine. Well, apparently, unless you ate something (and that will be fixed on its own by your body), there's a cause for your pain; and by taking medicine, you only try te get rid of symptoms... Of course, there are some very useful applications, but they mostly apply to critical causes (broken leg, cancer, etc.) and shouldn't be applicable to every day life.
Gotta go, more to come later...
Shura
Barry Gaunt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 03, 2002
Posts: 7729
I would bet my money on 42.


Ask a Meaningful Question and HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch
Getting someone to think and try something out is much more useful than just telling them the answer.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
1. Thomas, what is a Divine Soul, as opposed to soul? Is it supposed to feel us (humans) superior to other life forms? Isn't that a bit selfish, egoistic and (not to mention ) a bit blind? I will have hard time to argue with you because I do not in any way share the same understanding of concept of God as taught by catholic church.

Thomas has already pretty addressed this, but let me take a stab at it. It has nothing to do with being selfish, egotistical, and definitely not blind. Basically this claim is being made as an interpretation of the Bible, not to make anyone feel better about themselves. Since we are talking about God and souls, then I suppose it is fair to assume that we can all take the Bible as a starting point?
The Bible states that Man was created in God's image. This does not mean we physically resemble Him. We are created in His image in that we are given a divine soul.
So what's a soul? Probably a topic in itself, but maybe we could say "the essence of a being". So this of course means that all living things have souls. But if Man's is divine, how does that manifest itself differently from the other living creatures on this planet? I would offer that it manifests itself in the ability to make moral choices, to philosophize, and to have thought processes such as logic (even if some in other threads here refuse to display it ), and abstract reasoning.
I think the argument could be made that these things are divine, and are a result of humans having a divine soul, and this is the part of us that is in the image of God and therefore separates us from those creatures without divine souls.
Gregg Bolinger
GenRocket Founder
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 15299
    
    6

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
... I will have hard time to argue with you because I do not in any way share the same understanding of concept of God as taught by catholic church.Shura

Be careful when saying things like "the catholic church". I don't recall anyone specifying a denomination. The beliefs spoken here are not just catholic beliefs, but beliefs of practically every Christian Denomination. And even some non-christian ones I am sure, though I am no expert, just possibly not referencing the same God as Christians do.
And I believe Thomas Paul is right on when speaking of translations. I once read somewhere that English is the hardest language to learn because we have a different word for practically every single meaning we need to convey; life, soul, breath, etc. Where as many other languages will use one word to convey the same meaning, and it takes on different meanings along with it's context.


GenRocket - Experts at Building Test Data
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
I 've got too many questions to answers... Let me try to do some first.
1. Thomas, what is a Divine Soul, as opposed to soul? Is it supposed to feel us (humans) superior to other life forms? Isn't that a bit selfish, egoistic and (not to mention ) a bit blind? I will have hard time to argue with you because I do not in any way share the same understanding of concept of God as taught by catholic church.
2. Science vs. pseudo-science... What is a true pseudo-science is medicine. Stomack ache? Take this pill, you'll be fine. Well, apparently, unless you ate something (and that will be fixed on its own by your body), there's a cause for your pain; and by taking medicine, you only try te get rid of symptoms... Of course, there are some very useful applications, but they mostly apply to critical causes (broken leg, cancer, etc.) and shouldn't be applicable to every day life.
Gotta go, more to come later...
Shura

1. Humans should feel superior to the animals since the Bible tells us (and you started with the Bible... not me) that Man is created in God's image and that we have dominion over all the creatures of the earth.
A Divine soul is an immortal soul that provides us with the ability to reason and make moral choices.
2. Personally, I would rather have a doctor cure my stomach ache as opposed to an astrologer. But medicine is a science because it qualifies as a science. It is repeatable and testable.
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
make moral choices.

Absolutely. A fish that eats it's young is not committing a sin, because it is not equipted to understand the difference between right and wrong. It lives its life acting on instincts and needs. And that is fine.
A human on the other hand has a choice in how to live life. A human has the ability to comprehend ethics and philisophical thinking.
I believe that a being that can not even comprend the existance of GOD can not have an eternal soul. I know that my cat has emotions. I do not believe that it is capable of higher reasoning.
Is that egotistic? Probably. But that does not make it any less true. The fact is that evolution is NOT impartial. Some life forms are more intelligent that others. Some life forms have skills that others don't . . . some life forms have eternal souls, some don't.
Of course the REAL question is how closely is the human spirit tied to human intelligence? And can other species evolve the same ability?? The Bible say that only man has this gift . .


"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Jason Menard: it is fair to assume that we can all take the Bible as a starting point?
Fare in this conversation, maybe.. The problem is Bible is not the First Book. It describes real events with real people, I grant that. It does it in a way so that the real truths would be hidden from "simple-minded" folks.. In fact, I take that back...If you (generally speaking, not any of you personally) are satisfied with an image of God sitting on a cloud looking out over things, you'd be fine with Bible... That's the power, you accept something that is close to your heart and is enough for your mind to grasp, and go with it. Now, we all know that what I just described is not Truth, it is a projection, scientifically speaking...
Cindy Grass: A fish that eats it's young is not committing a sin, because it is not equipted to understand the difference between right and wrong.
There are lots of folks aout there who have their own concept of right and wrong. Heck, natives on some islands don't mind eating their dead... Because we have formed believes about right and wrong doesn't make us experts on it, nor does it mean our believes are correct.
Jason Menard: The Bible states...
Thomas Paul: Humans should feel superior to the animals since the Bible tells us...
Again you have to forgive me, because I don't completely share your believes. But since when did Bible became The Book, especially The First Book? There are religious and philosophical documents out there that are 3,4,6 thousand years old. It is interesting how you guys readily accept "scientific" proof based on fact that "The Bible says"...
Don't take it as an attack, I do think Bible is one of The Books...
Gregg, when I said catholic church, I just needed to bring an example of big Christian group...And English might be the hardest to translate, since it doesn't have many shades and colors of other languages, so some deep sence might get lost...
Shura
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:

I believe that a being that can not even comprend the existance of GOD can not have an eternal soul. I know that my cat has emotions. I do not believe that it is capable of higher reasoning.
Is that egotistic?...

The word I would choose here is "anthropomorphic."
Stu Glassman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: 91
Shura, did you mean to present the bible as the basis for this conversation, or did you use it just to provide examples?
-Stu
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Fair in this conversation, maybe.. The problem is Bible is not the First Book. It describes real events with real people, I grant that. It does it in a way so that the real truths would be hidden from "simple-minded" folks..
Real truths? And what hidden real truths would those be?
Just wondering... do you think Adam and Eve were real people? How about Noah? Job?
There are lots of folks aout there who have their own concept of right and wrong. Heck, natives on some islands don't mind eating their dead... Because we have formed believes about right and wrong doesn't make us experts on it, nor does it mean our believes are correct.
No one said they were. The point is that a lion does not have a moral sense. It just does things. Humans have a moral sense whether it is one we agree with or disagree with.
But since when did Bible became The Book, especially The First Book? There are religious and philosophical documents out there that are 3,4,6 thousand years old. It is interesting how you guys readily accept "scientific" proof based on fact that "The Bible says"...
Shura, take a look at your first post. You made the Bible the issue, not us! You didn't take a quote from the Koran. Silly me! I read your first post quoting the Bible and made the assumption that you wanted to discuss something from the Bible! So why not tell us what point you are trying to make because I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
The word I would choose here is "anthropomorphic."
Anthropocentric, perhaps? Or I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you doubting that Cindy's cat has emotions?


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
If you (generally speaking, not any of you personally) are satisfied with an image of God sitting on a cloud looking out over things, you'd be fine with Bible... That's the power, you accept something that is close to your heart and is enough for your mind to grasp, and go with it. Now, we all know that what I just described is not Truth, it is a projection, scientifically speaking...
That's fairly condescending, and inaccurate. I would offer that you may not be in a position to state what others believe nor how they choose to interpret any particular religious texts. You state that you don't share those beliefs, but I don't get the impression you really understand what those beliefs are. Now your statement of course is a projection, but that statement also has nothing to do with the Bible, nor the "truths" it offers.
There are lots of folks aout there who have their own concept of right and wrong. Heck, natives on some islands don't mind eating their dead...
Yes, the key word being "folks", not "fish". :roll: There are very few fish I'd wager who have a concept of either right or wrong. However we are talking about people as opposed to non-humans, and "folks" encompasses people, and people, like folks, can make moral choices given they have a divine soul (or so the argument goes).
Eating the dead is also a bit different than eating the living as well. And whether or not any of us considers such things as right or wrong, the people enjoying their dinner do have a belief whether or not it is right or wrong, and thus have made a moral decision. The fish eating their young do not make a moral choice to do so.
Again you have to forgive me, because I don't completely share your believes. But since when did Bible became The Book, especially The First Book?
You asked for a distinction regarding the divine soul. The Bible was cited as the basis for this distinction which was given.

It is interesting how you guys readily accept "scientific" proof based on fact that "The Bible says"...
I don't think anyone said anything about scientific proof. But more importantly, what does "science" have to do with anything? All science is, is that which we can be readily verified according to some known natural law.
Do you believe that our body of knowledge concerning science is complete and that there is little else of significance to discover? Before Mr. Newton wrote down that "objects in motion tend to stay in motion", did they? Scientists once wrote that the universe revolves around the Earth, which at one time was a scientific truth, but that didn't make it correct.
Science deals purely with the known, religion deals mostly with the unknown. They are almost mutually exclusive. The best that science can hope for regarding religion is that it can explain religion in some terms that fit into the little boxes that science uses to provide meaning to things. But we also know, and history makes this very evident, that those who embrace science as the be-all-end-all are quick to dismiss anything that science hasn't yet placed into one of those little boxes.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Again you have to forgive me, because I don't completely share your believes. But since when did Bible became The Book, especially The First Book? There are religious and philosophical documents out there that are 3,4,6 thousand years old. It is interesting how you guys readily accept "scientific" proof based on fact that "The Bible says"...
I haven't seen anyone claiming any scientific facts from the Bible (other than you, I mean.) You seemed to want to discuss the "soul" and since the existence or non-existence of the soul is outside of science, we can only discuss it in relation to some type of religious belief or non-belief. I think we all assumed that you wanted to discuss it in terms of the Bible since that was the book you quoted in your post.
The fact that a book (any book) is really old doesn't give it some kind of value over a book that was published last week so I don't see what your point about 6 thousand year old books is. Some people believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, not because of its age but because it was given to us by God. There are lots of books older than the Bible. That doesn't make them better than the Bible.
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Michael Ernest: That's very dramatic; can you offer some evidence to support it?
No, not really. That's what my former professor of philosophy used to say, and he knew quite a few mathematicians going mad...
Frontal attack, huh? OK, let's define more rules.
1. I just brought Bible as an example, for lack of better definition of living soul term. That example Cindy gave a while back, and now with fish, got stuck in my mind... :roll: I welcome a better (other) definition, Koran,
2. Somewhere along the lines I piggybacked off of our previous God/Time discussion... It was not my intent to make this discussion religious, but rather based on human logic.
Thomas Paul: Some people believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, not because of its age but because it was given to us by God.
So..."I am saying that this quote is brought to you by God. YOu have to believe me!" Do you think this quote was brought to you by God? I also didn't state that Bible is worse (or better) than other religious books. In fact, it might even be one of the best, for all I know, because I haven't read too many other religious books...
Jason Menard: I don't get the impression you really understand what those beliefs are...but that statement also has nothing to do with the Bible, nor the "truths" it offers
Why, you want to share a revelation?
There are very few fish I'd wager who have a concept of either right or wrong
That's where my problem lies - how do you know? Remember, they don't have supermarkets where they can buy food; and predators are all over. In an environment like that I wonder how fast humans would loose their right/wrong concepts. Map posted link earlier, and I also had a "human management" class on it, but don't remember now where it is...anyway, what it said was if basic human needs are not satisfied (hunger or life protection) humans tend to not care about higher needs (promotions, charity, caring about others, etc.)... Hmm, actually, deep down I still think we'd do well.
Let's desipher it using Cindy's cat, lions and fish as examples!
Also, telling me that I don't understand the subject might not do discussion any good... :roll: Remember how fast other threads were closed?
Shura
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
It was not my intent to make this discussion religious, but rather based on human logic.
Ummmm... OK. This could be entertaining. So if we ignore all the religious references so far... what, if anything, is there to say on the topic of souls that isn't somehow religious in nature?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Map posted link earlier, and I also had a "human management" class on it, but don't remember now where it is...anyway, what it said was if basic human needs are not satisfied (hunger or life protection) humans tend to not care about higher needs (promotions, charity, caring about others, etc.)...
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
So if we ignore all the religious references so far... what, if anything, is there to say on the topic of souls that isn't somehow religious in nature?
How do we define "soul", for example?
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1055
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
So if we ignore all the religious references so far... what, if anything, is there to say on the topic of souls that isn't somehow religious in nature?

You're right. This seems like a, um, true dichotomy to me.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Bonus points if you can work "orthogonal" into your next response as well.
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1055
If I did that, wouldn't that be orthogonal to the topic?
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:

Anthropocentric, perhaps? Or I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you doubting that Cindy's cat has emotions?

Actually, I doubt that we have the emotional integrity of animals. Animal emotions seem tied directly to their everyday needs and challenges; ours are often arbitrary or contrived. It's difficult to presume emotional states in a human being that could in fact be memories or other rehearsed mental states.
To say only humans have a divine soul I'm not even sure qualifies as anthropocentrism, since it stems from religious doctrine, and few of those doctrines allow for the divinity of all people.
Declaring the world to have been built around and primarily for us, that's anthropocentric.
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
To say only humans have a divine soul I'm not even sure qualifies as anthropocentrism, since it stems from religious doctrine, and few of those doctrines imagine allow for the divinity of all people.
The last sentence is a bit fractured. Are you trying to say that most religions claim that only certain people have divine souls? That sounds rather odd. Care to expand on that thought?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Speaking about divine soul, do mail servers have them? I am looking at
CoverPages Newsletter subscription page and "requests to the mail server" are:
Help.
Subscribe.
Unsubscribe.
Confirmation.
Contacting a human.
Note that according to the list's authors "contacting a human" is the last thing you want to do
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The last sentence is a bit fractured. Are you trying to say that most religions claim that only certain people have divine souls? That sounds rather odd. Care to expand on that thought?

I fixed it.
That is of course what I am claiming. To be frank, I thought it was a rather obvious point. My definition of "divine" here means a soul capable of attaining a higher plane of existence after death -- call it Heaven, Paradise, Valhalla, Nirvana, whatever.
Most religions have their own formulation of this, but one way or another some are excluded from this attainment, either by nature (i.e., Original Sin), "unnatural" act (suicide, homosexuality), or living outside the spiritual protection of a belief (heathens, pagans, infidels, athesists).
I'd venture further and say that making moral choices in the course of one's life is no more an indication of divinity than chasing a ball of yarn or attacking the bottom of a paper bag.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Regarding divine soul, my mother-in-law sent me this:
A man walks into a French restaurant and asks, "Do you serve snalis?"
"Yes, of course we serve snails." the waiter replies.
"Good. Then I'll have the pasta and my snail will have a salad"
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
The religions that I am familiar with teach that all souls are capable of reaching heaven. Whether we reach it or not is determined by the moral choices we make. Christianity teaches that all souls are divine whether they get to heaven or not. Of course, you may wish you didn't have a divine soul if you end up in hell.
I'd venture further and say that making moral choices in the course of one's life is no more an indication of divinity than chasing a ball of yarn or attacking the bottom of a paper bag.
I don't think anyone said it is. In fact, everyone has made it quite clear that there is no "test" for soul-ness. Whether we have a soul or not is a religious question, not a question for observation and scientific reasoning.
I think the issue was more in line of "in what way is man superior to the other creatures." And the answer is, if we are superior it is because we can make moral choices. That doesn't mean we make good choices, just that we are capable of knowing right from wrong.
Stu Glassman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: 91
"Remember, they don't have supermarkets where they can buy food; and predators are all over." - Shura
Ah, but remember that humans were once in that position as well. Even then, there's evidence that we were at least somewhat compassionate. I recall someone finding a skeleton of an aged man who would not have been able to survive without the help of his tribe.
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I'd venture further and say that making moral choices in the course of one's life is no more an indication of divinity than chasing a ball of yarn or attacking the bottom of a paper bag.

Thank you, Michael, that was one of my points.
Stu Glassman: there's evidence that we were at least somewhat compassionate. I recall someone finding a skeleton of an aged man who would not have been able to survive without the help of his tribe
If you look closer into animal world, I am sure you'll find similar examples. I believe though, that in this case it is our nature, as well, that is in a play, and rather not some mystical divine soul. It takes a lot longer for a human to develop into adult, and also, it takes a long time for an adult to attain wisdom. Since humans needed wisdom to survive, it was unlikely that they would dump their most wise men. That was no different from survival tactics; what does it have to do with compassion?
Jim Yingst: what, if anything, is there to say on the topic of souls that isn't somehow religious in nature?
Well, I am sorry if you can't see this topic outside of religious context. I guess I am either going well above my head, or talking to wrong people. Maybe priest could help me...
It is very ammusing how people react on these things. "oh, it is this and this and this way, everybody knows it, and you seem not to have any knowledge of that, poor you..."; the amasing thing is, there is no obvious truths about all this topic, so whatever you think I don't know, you obviously, don't know either. Remember, the more you know, the more you think you don't know? :roll:
Thomas Paul: I think the issue was more in line of "in what way is man superior to the other creatures."
Aha, as well as why do we think that our civilization is linearly growing, whe everythig else seems to have cycles? Why do we think that whatever level we are at right now wasn't achieved before?
Shura
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Oh, you also have to forgive me, I don't have enough time to generalize now, so my train of thought might seem a bit hectic... :roll:
Shura
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1055
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Aha, as well as why do we think that our civilization is linearly growing, whe everythig else seems to have cycles?

Like this thread, perhaps?
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Back to God