everything else does .....

If the soul does not survive death then it dies. If we're discussing this from a Biblical view, the soul is eternal and does not die.

Chatter, If the soul never dies, it's only logical to presume the soul lived before birth.

With certain spiritual practices such as meditation it is not necessary to have faith or believe anything in particular in order to take up the practice. In fact, many people take up meditation or other techniques for the health and psychological benefits alone. It could even be said that having fixed beliefs or expectations might be a hindrance to the practice. So, why are these techniques "spiritual"? Because, if practiced over a sustained period of time, they can produce a profound change in one's perspective or state of awareness. The subjective experiences that result may provide evidence to support certain metaphysical descriptions, such as those presented in traditional spiritual/mystical/metaphysical literature. This literature records the experiences and insights of practitioners in ancient times, such as the experience of higher states of consciousness, the astral body, certain psychic phenomena, etc. Once again, it is not a matter of faith. A person should accept only as much as is supported by their own experience. Otherwise, there is little value in speculating about things for which we have no evidence.

In contrast, the suicide bomber takes an extreme position (that others should die) base purely on faith. He believes that his own understanding is superior, and that others who have a different faith deserve to be killed. This is both blind faith and arrogance.

Please state your authority. When God breathed life into Adam, he did not receive a soul, he "came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7, emphasis added)

Perhaps you should define what you mean by the soul? What is it, if not the part of us that survives after death?

IFF: "...for the health and psychological benefits alone."


I agree with this conclusion.

1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : LEADER
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force

Your soul is you. As in definition 3, above.

I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps it lived in the same realm to which it goes after the body dies.

Where's xingu when you need him?

Definition 3 equates the soul with a person's total self. That begs the question of what the total self is. I define the soul as individualized consciousness. If consciousness is not dependent upon the physical body for its existence, the soul may survive the death of the body.

bm

IFF: If consciousness is not dependent upon the physical body for its existence, the soul may survive the death of the body.


There's no question that consciousness dies with the body; at least brain waves ceases to exist from oxygen deprivation.

That simply indicates that the brain is not functioning. As a result, the brain is no longer an instrument through which consciousness can function. Near-death experiences suggest that consciousness starts to dissociate from the body as it dies. Normally, when the body dies, the etheric body soon dissolves after that and awareness of the physical world is lost. Consciousness withdraws into the astral body.

IFF: As a result, the brain is no longer an instrument through which consciousness can function. Near-death experiences suggest that consciousness starts to dissociate from the body as it dies.

I don't give much credence to near death experience. I also don't give much credence to people who claim they were kidnapped by aliens and taken on their ships.

You should be true to your own beliefs. If you believe that when you're dead, you're dead, fine. Far be it from me to say otherwise. Its good to keep an open mind though. (Though its surprising to me that someone with those beliefs would frequent a Spirituality and Religion forum.)

For the most part when I hear people mention souls there tends to be a real personalisation of it, I have a soul or the soul IS me when "me" is something very concrete and alienated. So in that sense, I guess it does age because that just seems to be the continued identification with oneself (the perception of who I am) through time and change. For no specific reason I tend to think in terms of the soul as spirit but momentary spirit, zest for life, energy and vibrance but this seems more transient.

Personally I'd be wary of extrapolating too much at all from meditation but that's me. I'm not sure about supposed comparisons between prayer and meditation though, especially in the light of the discussion of the soul. My understanding is that prayer tends to assume the division between the person praying and God, meditation seems to be about transcending this divide. I say that because I remember when meditating a little on one occasion, the smoke from those incense sticks was particularly obvious in my field of view. At first I remember feeling an appreciation of beauty for it's wistful movement but secondly (the bit that seems tough to really describe in words) the constant flow and changing movement of the smoke, dancing in the light of the candle, struck me. I didn't feel "I" was watching the smoke but that there was instead, just an on-going movement or fluctuation, it was all very simple.

Now in terms of the soul and aging, I think this says something very interesting about what it is that even could survive death and also what was before birth. Talk of meditation in association with religion, even spirituality, such loaded terms as they are, detracts from it all really. It also seems that "intuitive" has become a bit of a dirty word, or something up for scientific bashing, that's unfortunate too. For me it's about application, I appreciate evidence and critical analysis as much as the next person but it also seems interesting to consider the scope of evidence and it's usage. That said, any beliefs or ideas that arise from prayer or meditation should rightly be compared with common sense, alternative viewpoints and an inner sense of decency. I certainly don't think any right minded person who advocates such activities would suggest that they're an alternative to evidence in a court case for example! To me it's more a matter of a "working, ever-changing framework for meaning in life/understanding of life".

Ashers, BINGO!

An eminently reasonable point of view. I have to agree.