The 'SOUL'. What is it?

@Olivier5,

Absolutely.
'Self', is good.

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

What is the/a 'spirit'?

2 Replies

@mark noble,

The father, son and holy spirit?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The father, son and holy spirit?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg55lMIxu5Fwsbhr2FDAASrBantUn_rHUFyOy5ulsxncyl8zVc

That is why it was originally "spirits."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Religious concept - Only benefits God-worshippers.

2 Replies

@mark noble,

I agree. Why do people buy into all that mysticism? Most often, if one can't logically explain it or see it, one can conclude it doesn't exist.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have friends who have applied themselves to fixed-religions.
It gives them a sense of purpose, guidance and wellbeing.
I would not take that from them even if I could, Cic. They are my friends because of what they mean to me, not for what keeps them sane:)

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

What is the/a 'spirit'?

Using the same reference from my wild analogy -electric current, printer, turning On the printer- spirit is the force (electric current) represented in Hebrew meaning as "wind" o "breath".

From here, it might be understood good spirit as favorable for the body and soul, and contaminated or bad spirit will cause damage to the body and the soul.

The source of the electric current is a generator, in religious meaning as god.

This generator also appears to communicate with the printer thru a C5 Ethernet cable or better to say thru Wi-Fi means. But, the Bible also mentions another source of power, that sends bad or negative information thru the same line or radio waves. Then we are aware of the "bad spirit(s)".

Who knows how this main generator acquired the characteristics of thinking, creating, etc... but the book establishes that we are made by copying those characteristics.

A wild analogy.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

It's the same with all my siblings and their children who are christians. I'm the only yellow sheep in our family that is not 'religious.' Even my wife is a buddhist.

I know it gives them great comfort during tragic events and every day, knowing that someone called god is looking out for their soul/spirit.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's a great mixture, Cic.
I am quite partial to Buddhistic views - Yet to find a flaw in it.
Except when the Tsunami hit Thailand and I saw buddhist monks using the internet.
'Hypocrites!', I Screamed. Smile

Not a teaching-flaw though, more a lapse of.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Unless of course the concept is love, peace, and desire.

2 Replies

@MWal,

What concept?

0 Replies

@MWal,

Those are emotions, not concepts.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

I agree it's a vague concept. But that's what people mean by the word 'soul': the ghost in the machine, what disappears or goes away when you die.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Generally speaking, isn't most things of life vague?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, you've pointed out that you use the word "reality" differently in different contexts, one context involves, among other things, prognosticating Super Bowl winners, the other context involves your musings about god.

You base your contextualization of these things on experience.

Those things within the first context you accept as beliefs because they are based on experience.

Those things within the second context you do not accept as beliefs and dismiss as blind guesses because they are based on damn near no experience.

The reason you accept the experiences involved in your first context but you don't accept the experiences involved in your second context is that you use the word "reality" differently in different contexts.

Your logic is circular, Frank.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes, you've pointed out that you use the word "reality" differently in different contexts, one context involves, among other things, prognosticating Super Bowl winners, the other context involves your musings about god.

You base your contextualization of these things on experience.

Those things within the first context you accept as beliefs because they are based on experience.

Those things within the second context you do not accept as beliefs and dismiss as blind guesses because they are based on damn near no experience.

The reason you accept the experiences involved in your first context but you don't accept the experiences involved in your second context is that you use the word "reality" differently in different contexts.

Your logic is circular, Frank.

My logic is not circular, Blue...it is quite linear, consistent, and well constructed.

I use the words "reality" and "know" in different ways depending upon context and circumstances. I do this for a valid reason...and I suggest that most people do the same thing...although they might not be aware of doing it.

Your portrayal of how I use those words ...and why I use them is so far off base, it is difficult for me to deal with the problem.

Under any circumstances...why do you not answer the questions I posed...since I have answer several of yours already?

Answer my questions and I will attempt to give your the explanation again, because you are way, way off base. It is obvious you have not listened at all to what I have been saying...and are stuck in your notion of what I am saying rather than what I am actually saying.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I did answer your question.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So are you saying you also are of the opinion that the experience and calculations that go into trying to predict the winner of the Super Bowl in February...

...are the same kind of things the people who claim "There is a GOD" are considering.

C'mon. Get with it, Blue.

I wrote:

If they're both based on experience, I don't see the difference, and you haven't explained any difference.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I did answer your question.

Frank Apisa wrote:
So are you saying you also are of the opinion that the experience and calculations that go into trying to predict the winner of the Super Bowl in February...

...are the same kind of things the people who claim "There is a GOD" are considering.

C'mon. Get with it, Blue.

I wrote:
If they're both based on experience, I don't see the difference, and you haven't explained any difference.

Answer my questions...then we may discuss it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Wittgenstein suggests that very many of our concepts are “family resemblance” concepts with fuzzy boundarie, sets of stuff that look similar. He illustrates with the example of the concept of "game":

Are they all ‘amusing’? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball-games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared …[T]he result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss—crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail. I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than “family resemblances”; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way. — And I shall say: ‘games’ form a family.
(Philosophical Investigations)

0 Replies

The 'SOUL'. What is it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know