How do you define the soul?

[Teannika]

Biblically speaking the person has three parts:
(Which, interestingly enough, is triune like God is)

'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (1 Thessalonians 5:23)


ETA:
God has a body (Jesus Christ). God has a soul (God the Father). God has a spirit (the Holy Spirit).
Adam was made in the image of God, thus he had three parts.

Nature itself teaches us that the things in it are broken down into 3's:

Three physical properties: Time, Space, Matter
Time: past, present, future.
Space: length, width, depth.

Art: three primary colours.

Family: man, woman, children.
Bible: written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.
 

[Teannika]

  Regarding animals, the bible says that the spirit of an animal goes downward. Animals don't need saving (quickening), they do not have a soul.
 

'Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?' (Eccl 3:21)

 

[albeto.]

I'm not sure what I think of these, and obviously I'm not who you were talking to, but I would wonder what your priest would say about "The gift of God is eternal life" (Roman 6:23), "I give them eternal life and they will never perish." (John 10:28), "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2), "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:46), and "In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" (Titus 1:2). Those kinda hint at life beyond the now.

 

I am not saying I believe those or not. I'm really not sure actually. And my quoting may be slightly off as it's from memory, but those are what jumps to mind when someone mentions eternal life.

 

Good question! I didn't think to ask that at the time. Perhaps he was referring to other interpretations that don't support immorality?

[maize]

Perhaps he was referring to other interpretations that don't support immorality?

Well now, that might depend on what type of immorality was under discussion ;)

 

(sorry couldn't help myself...)

[Mom-ninja.]

The soul is our self awareness. Our brains are aware of simply existing. This awareness is what I consider our soul.

 

Evidence? Neuroscience, psychology, biological evolution, and anthropology books I've read over the years. I do not believe there is a soul after we die. When our brains die so does our awareness of self and life. 

[albeto.]

Well now, that might depend on what type of immorality was under discussion ;)

 

(sorry couldn't help myself...)

 

*snort*

 

Freudian slip

[Teannika]

The soul is who you are, separate from the flesh.
(The spirit of a person cannot be seen, it is described as wind in the Bible.)


A soul can be seen.

Revelation 6:9
'....I saw under the altar the souls'

A soul has a bodily form. A soul can wear clothes.

Revelation 6:10
'And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season'

A soul can thirst.

Psalm 63:1
'..my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is..'

A soul can feel pain.

Luke 16:24
'..have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'

A soul can be lost.

Matthew 16:26
'For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' (Matthew 16:26)



[i know I'm just repeating what the Bible says, which isn't what you are after, but I'm pretty sure that you won't mind me adding this. It may prompt further discussion or insights.]

[albeto.]

[i know I'm just repeating what the Bible says, which isn't what you are after, but I'm pretty sure that you won't mind me adding this. It may prompt further discussion or insights.]

 

It's all good. It answers my second question - what is your source for this information. For you it's the bible. Others reference the bible as their source, but come away with a different definition (not visible or tangible). For others it's their understanding of the mechanics of the natural world (science).

 

Your definition is interesting with regard to being a tangible, visible, almost physical thing, and yet we cannot see it, feel it, or perceive it with any sensory organs or tools. I hear you saying that you can't see it or touch it, but you believe it can be seen and touched anyway. It makes me wonder how you understand the concepts of things like seeing and touching, if the definition doesn't "count" when things that can't be seen or touched are nevertheless seen and touched.

[Jasperstone]

Biblically speaking the person has three parts:

(Which, interestingly enough, is triune like God is)

 

'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

 

 

ETA:

God has a body (Jesus Christ). God has a soul (God the Father). God has a spirit (the Holy Spirit).

Adam was made in the image of God, thus he had three parts.

 

Nature itself teaches us that the things in it are broken down into 3's:

 

Three physical properties: Time, Space, Matter

Time: past, present, future.

Space: length, width, depth.

Art: three primary colours.

Family: man, woman, children.

Bible: written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.

 

Thanks, that was interesting.

[Teannika]

It's all good. It answers my second question - what is your source for this information. For you it's the bible. Others reference the bible as their source, but come away with a different definition (not visible or tangible). For others it's their understanding of the mechanics of the natural world (science).

 

Your definition is interesting with regard to being a tangible, visible, almost physical thing, and yet we cannot see it, feel it, or perceive it with any sensory organs or tools. I hear you saying that you can't see it or touch it, but you believe it can be seen and touched anyway. It makes me wonder how you understand the concepts of things like seeing and touching, if the definition doesn't "count" when things that can't be seen or touched are nevertheless seen and touched.

 

Well I can explain it a bit further, just in case anyone is interested.

 

I believe that the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, so that our soul is then separated from our flesh. (This is the process of the spiritual circumcision), and it is what quickens (makes alive) the person spiritually. Before this, we are still spiritually dead in our sins, so our soul is still attached to our physical body.

 

'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:' (Col 2:11)

 

Our soul is in us until we die, which is why we can't see or touch it. And then when we die (our soul) leaves the flesh in the bodily form.

 

 

As I said, I know this isn't what you are after, as you want physical evidence of your soul. But I have presented it anyway. I have previously asked in an atheist group a couple of years back if they believed that they had a soul. I got a lot of responses, but I did not have anyone speak up and say that they didn't have one. It was as if no-one wanted to believe or freely admit that they had no soul.

 

Do you think that you want to believe that you have a soul?

Or are you willing to accept that you may not?

[Lady Florida.]

The soul is our self awareness. Our brains are aware of simply existing. This awareness is what I consider our soul.

 

Evidence? Neuroscience, psychology, biological evolution, and anthropology books I've read over the years. I do not believe there is a soul after we die. When our brains die so does our awareness of self and life. 

 

I like your definition.

[albeto.]

Well I can explain it a bit further, just in case anyone is interested.

Always. I like these conversations with you, Teannika. You tend to stick to the argument presented without getting distracted. I find those kinds of discussions the most rewarding because there's so many new things to learn.

 

I believe that the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, so that our soul is then separated from our flesh. (This is the process of the spiritual circumcision), and it is what quickens (makes alive) the person spiritually. Before this, we are still spiritually dead in our sins, so our soul is still attached to our physical body.

 

'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:' (Col 2:11)

 

Our soul is in us until we die, which is why we can't see or touch it. And then when we die (our soul) leaves the flesh in the bodily form.

If the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, and the soul is then separated from the flesh, that makes me think two things are true based on this. 1. The soul of the person who is not born again is not detached from the flesh. 2. The soul that is detached would have physical properties if it can accomplish physical feats (like wear clothes and perceive thirst).

So with regard to the first, what happens to the soul of the unsaved person at the time of bodily death?

And with regard to the second, if it can accomplish physical feats, why do we not observe that in the same way we observe our flesh accomplishing the same physical feats?

 

As I said, I know this isn't what you are after, as you want physical evidence of your soul.

Not really. I don't think there is physical evidence of the soul. At the very least, there is no objective, workable definition of the soul to work with in the first place. It means different things to different people, which raises the question, who is right? For that reason, I'm curious how people come to their personal definitions. Yours is the bible, and while that can't offer physical evidence of the soul, it can offer a reason for your argument. That's my question, the reason for your definition, not physical evidence.

 

But I have presented it anyway. I have previously asked in an atheist group a couple of years back if they believed that they had a soul. I got a lot of responses, but I did not have anyone speak up and say that they didn't have one. It was as if no-one wanted to believe or freely admit that they had no soul.

 

Do you think that you want to believe that you have a soul?

Or are you willing to accept that you may not?

Personally, I do not believe we have a soul in any practical sense. I think it's a word used to convey the concept of the self, one's ability to be aware of and ponder his or her existence, thoughts, desires, fears, hopes, future, possibilities, and the like. I can't figure out how any of this is separate from the workings of the physical brain though. Ultimately I think "soul" is a rather romantic word, and not one that references a physiological component of the human body, but one that references our sense of awareness and our relationship with our environment.

 

To answer your question, I do not think that I want to believe that I have a soul. I could be wrong of course, as we aren't always aware of what we want. Assuming I am not in denial, the answer is no. I don't have a desire to either have or not have a soul. The analogy might be me asking you, do you think that you want to believe that you have an aura? If you aren't persuaded to believe such a thing actually exists, do you want it? Does it cause any emotional upset to think you don't? For me, no. For you, I imagine the same.

 

I am not only willing to accept that I may not, I do not believe I do. I do not believe any of us do. This conclusion does not bother me in any way.

[Teannika]

Quote: "Personally, I do not believe we have a soul in any practical sense. I think it's a word used to convey the concept of the self, one's ability to be aware of and ponder his or her existence, thoughts, desires, fears, hopes, future, possibilities, and the like. I can't figure out how any of this is separate from the workings of the physical brain though. Ultimately I think "soul" is a rather romantic word, and not one that references a physiological component of the human body, but one that references our sense of awareness and our relationship with our environment.

 

To answer your question, I do not think that I want to believe that I have a soul. I could be wrong of course, as we aren't always aware of what we want. Assuming I am not in denial, the answer is no. I don't have a desire to either have or not have a soul. The analogy might be me asking you, do you think that you want to believe that you have an aura? If you aren't persuaded to believe such a thing actually exists, do you want it? Does it cause any emotional upset to think you don't? For me, no. For you, I imagine the same.

 

I am not only willing to accept that I may not, I do not believe I do. I do not believe any of us do. This conclusion does not bother me in any way."

 

 

 

That's where I thought you stood, and what I had predicted your reply would be. Thankyou for answering as I wanted to be sure. You are also very good at articulating things. Nothing annoys me more than when people can't answer a simple question with a clear yes or a no. And that in itself often shows dishonesty. (I'm not referring to someone still weighing up a matter.)

 

I'll reply to your questions a bit later on when I have time to put some effort in. I feel I have a responsibility to not misrepresent what the bible says, so it might take a bit of effort and time.

 

I agree with you about the source being such an important part of the equation. People can say "I think" and "I believe" all day long, but unless the source is recognised or accepted, the most that can be achieved is that new thoughts might be prompted.

 

It's always an interesting discussion anyway. Good to think about and ponder, no matter where you're coming from.

[Scarlett]

Do you believe people alive today may be resurrected, or will the perfect earth be enjoyed by those alive at the time of it's coming? Will everyone who ever lived be resurrected, or just a select few?

 

And, if you don't mind one more question, will those who will be resurrected then go on to live forever, or for a finite time, or is it unknown?

 

I recall the conversation I had with my priest once when he mentioned the bible never says we'll live forever, not even in heaven. That kind of upset me because I had grown up expecting that was true. It was like having to face mortality twice and I was kind of banking on immortality.

God is able to resurrect anyone who has died at any time in history. Gods original purpose was for humans to life forever on a paradise earth.

[Momof3]

The soul is who you are, separate from the flesh.

(The spirit of a person cannot be seen, it is described as wind in the Bible.)

 

 

A soul can be seen.

 

Revelation 6:9

'....I saw under the altar the souls'

 

A soul has a bodily form. A soul can wear clothes.

 

Revelation 6:10

'And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season'

 

A soul can thirst.

 

Psalm 63:1

'..my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is..'

 

A soul can feel pain.

 

Luke 16:24

'..have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'

 

A soul can be lost.

 

Matthew 16:26

'For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' (Matthew 16:26)

 

 

 

[i know I'm just repeating what the Bible says, which isn't what you are after, but I'm pretty sure that you won't mind me adding this. It may prompt further discussion or insights.]

Just a thought to stir the pot... :) 

 

The Hebrew & Greek words behind soul (in Koine Greek it's psyche) can mean many different things. Life, breath, wind, spirit, soul, etc. So (I believe) sometimes the Bible uses the word "soul" and it's referring to that immortal part of us that relates to the world around us... and sometimes it really is just talking about someone's physical life on this earth. 

 

The context is usually crystal clear about which definition to use. But this is where some tend to take verses out of context and misconstrue what's being said.

 

I'd have to think to come up with an example...  

[Momof3]

Well I can explain it a bit further, just in case anyone is interested.

 

I believe that the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, so that our soul is then separated from our flesh. (This is the process of the spiritual circumcision), and it is what quickens (makes alive) the person spiritually. Before this, we are still spiritually dead in our sins, so our soul is still attached to our physical body.

 

'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:' (Col 2:11)

 

Our soul is in us until we die, which is why we can't see or touch it. And then when we die (our soul) leaves the flesh in the bodily form.

 

 

As I said, I know this isn't what you are after, as you want physical evidence of your soul. But I have presented it anyway. I have previously asked in an atheist group a couple of years back if they believed that they had a soul. I got a lot of responses, but I did not have anyone speak up and say that they didn't have one. It was as if no-one wanted to believe or freely admit that they had no soul.

 

Do you think that you want to believe that you have a soul?

Or are you willing to accept that you may not?

This is very interesting. :) How do you see the difference between spirit & soul?

 

Also curious how you figure in the idea of a glorified body after the resurrection? Is that something separate from the soul? (I believe the soul leaves the body in a sort of 'bodily form' at death...and then will be reunited with the body at the resurrection. Then God will glorify the bodies of those He has redeemed...)

[Amy in NH]

 This is a new idea for me and I'm trying to picture it in my head. I understand you to say that the energy released during the origins of the universe is a force that binds us to one another. Is that close? By extension, we would be bound/connected to every thing in the universe as well, right? Do you extend the idea of soul to every thing that was created, or just living things?

 

What kind of force does the energy of positive thought/prayer work on (wait, energy works through a kind of force, right?)? Can it affect any object, or only another living thing, or only certain living things? Is there a limit to the distance that this force can work?

 

I'd love to have this conversation over a couple drinks. It's not quite 5:00 yet, so I'll join you later. ;)

 

I envision it like a giant koosh ball. 

 

Our individual experiences here in this universe are at the tip of each strand, but our "soul" energy is all one connected thing.

[albeto.]

I envision it like a giant koosh ball. 

 

Our individual experiences here in this universe are at the tip of each strand, but our "soul" energy is all one connected thing.

 

On what do you base this idea? Is it biblical? Another religious belief?

 

I'm curious how you understand the force of positive thoughts/prayer to work. How do thoughts affect matter? Is there a proximity limit?

[Teannika]

This is very interesting. :) How do you see the difference between spirit & soul?

 

The spirit is like wind. (John 3:8)

 

 

The spirit is like breathe. It gives the person or animal life. (Ezekiel 37:9; 14)

 

 

Every person has the 'spirit of man' in them (Eccl 3:21. I quoted this one earlier. It differentiates between the 'spirit of man' and the 'spirit of the beast.' Other spirits include the 'unclean spirit' and the 'Holy Spirit')

 

 

An unsaved man has a dead spirit, but a living soul. If you have never been born again, you have this spirit in you, the 'spirit of man', but it is a dead spirit, it needs to be brought to life:

 

 

'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.' (John 3:5-7)

 

'And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;..' (Eph 2:1)

 

'let the dead bury their dead' (Luke 9:60)

 

 

I think someone said this earlier, but I'll repeat it. When man was originally made, God made him out of 'the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' (Gen 2:7). There is that word breath again.

 

After Adam, mankind was then born in the image of Adam, not God. (Gen 5:3). Do you remember when God said that Adam would surely die the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:17). Well as I understand it, he died spiritually that day. And henceforth mankind was born with a dead spirit in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins. And thus, the need to be reborn.

 

 

 

 

Also curious how you figure in the idea of a glorified body after the resurrection? Is that something separate from the soul? (I believe the soul leaves the body in a sort of 'bodily form' at death...and then will be reunited with the body at the resurrection. Then God will glorify the bodies of those He has redeemed...)

 

(Yes, I think we see it quite the same.)

 

I'm not sure if I can do this justice off the top of my head. It has been a while since I've studied it, so hopefully it comes back to me.

 

First of all there is a difference to those saints who died in Old Testament times. They still maintained their soul in a bodily formed, but were not given their new bodies until they were taken to heaven after the resurrection of Christ. Keep in mind the difference that those in the Old Testament were not 'born again'.

 

The body of Christ is in a different situation. A born again saint in the body of Christ has already been made alive and is already seated in heavenly places. They are just waiting to leave their fleshly body and get a glorified one. If a believer in this age dies before the rapture, they will go straight to heaven, but still must wait for their glorified body. We all get our new body at the same time.

 

'In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.' (1 Co 15:52)

 

And we won't know what it will be like until we get it:

 

'Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.' (1 John 3:2)

 

 

 

Also, study out what happened to Jesus after his resurrection. At first he goes to the lower parts of the earth. When he comes back up three days later and is seen by men they are not allowed to touch him. First he has to go back up to his Father. They can still see him, but not touch. When he reappears back on earth he eats with them, and invites them to touch him.

 

He says: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' (Luke 24:39)

[Teannika]

If the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, and the soul is then separated from the flesh, that makes me think two things are true based on this. 1. The soul of the person who is not born again is not detached from the flesh. 2. The soul that is detached would have physical properties if it can accomplish physical feats (like wear clothes and perceive thirst).

So with regard to the first, what happens to the soul of the unsaved person at the time of bodily death?

And with regard to the second, if it can accomplish physical feats, why do we not observe that in the same way we observe our flesh accomplishing the same physical feats?

 

 

1. Yes, you are correct. The soul of the a person who has not been born again is still attached to their flesh. This is why there were certain conditions in the old testament times that are not necessary today. A person living in the Old Testament time would become unclean if their flesh touched something else unclean. They would have to wash their flesh with water and wait a period of time. (Lev 22:6) A born again believer need not worry about this. (1 Cor 6:11)

 

So your question is "what happens to the soul of the unsaved person at the time of bodily death?" I think, so far as I understand, that the spirit returns to the Lord. But the soul remains. Of course it will be separated from the flesh on death, but not be given a glorified body. The bible describes that the unsaved will be like a worm 'their worm.' (I think that this may be a physical description that represents being from their father, the devil.)

 

Of course, some things I do not fully understand myself or pretend to. I'm going off of what information I've been given.

 

2. "The soul that is detached would have physical properties if it can accomplish physical feats" "why do we not observe that in the same way we observe our flesh?"

 

I think that the soul is separated by an invisible incision made by God, but it does not come away from the body until death. God made it this way, but I cannot know or explain more than that. People who have out of body experiences would probably have more to say on the matter than I do. I know one lady, a saved believer, who believed she saw herself dragged off the bed out of her body. But these are only stories we hear and can't verify unless it had happened to us.

[Momof3]

The spirit is like wind. (John 3:8)

 

 

The spirit is like breathe. It gives the person or animal life. (Ezekiel 37:9; 14)

 

 

Every person has the 'spirit of man' in them (Eccl 3:21. I quoted this one earlier. It differentiates between the 'spirit of man' and the 'spirit of the beast.' Other spirits include the 'unclean spirit' and the 'Holy Spirit')

 

 

An unsaved man has a dead spirit, but a living soul. If you have never been born again, you have this spirit in you, the 'spirit of man', but it is a dead spirit, it needs to be brought to life:

 

 

'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.' (John 3:5-7)

 

'And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;..' (Eph 2:1)

 

'let the dead bury their dead' (Luke 9:60)

 

 

I think someone said this earlier, but I'll repeat it. When man was originally made, God made him out of 'the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' (Gen 2:7). There is that word breath again.

 

After Adam, mankind was then born in the image of Adam, not God. (Gen 5:3). Do you remember when God said that Adam would surely die the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:17). Well as I understand it, he died spiritually that day. And henceforth mankind was born with a dead spirit in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins. And thus, the need to be reborn.

 

 

 

(Yes, I think we see it quite the same.)

 

I'm not sure if I can do this justice off the top of my head. It has been a while since I've studied it, so hopefully it comes back to me.

 

First of all there is a difference to those saints who died in Old Testament times. They still maintained their soul in a bodily formed, but were not given their new bodies until they were taken to heaven after the resurrection of Christ. Keep in mind the difference that those in the Old Testament were not 'born again'.

 

The body of Christ is in a different situation. A born again saint in the body of Christ has already been made alive and is already seated in heavenly places. They are just waiting to leave their fleshly body and get a glorified one. If a believer in this age dies before the rapture, they will go straight to heaven, but still must wait for their glorified body. We all get our new body at the same time.

 

'In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.' (1 Co 15:52)

 

And we won't know what it will be like until we get it:

 

'Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.' (1 John 3:2)

 

 

 

Also, study out what happened to Jesus after his resurrection. At first he goes to the lower parts of the earth. When he comes back up three days later and is seen by men they are not allowed to touch him. First he has to go back up to his Father. They can still see him, but not touch. When he reappears back on earth he eats with them, and invites them to touch him.

 

He says: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' (Luke 24:39)

Thank you for answering. I think we agree. Only I have never considered an actual physical 'circumcision of the flesh.' I think I have always believed this to be more figurative. I see the flesh as a 'pull' towards sinful actions...the part of us that wants to rebel against God. Acc to Romans 6-8, the flesh and the spirit constantly war against each other...the one pulling me towards sin, and the other pulling me towards God. So, the Christian life is a continual choosing (a 'walk') of following one or the other of those 'pulls'. 

[goldberry]

I believe similarly to Scarlett, and my source is the Bible.  I believe that we are souls and therefore cease to exist at death.  Spirit is the "energy" which keeps us alive, and the Bible says "the spirit returns to the true God who gave it", but I don't believe that the spirit has an individual personality that continues.  It is generic energy (not sure how to put that, KWIM?). 

 

The Bible is my source, but this makes logical sense to me also (with an existing assumption of a God).  The Bible describes God as "the source of all dynamic energy".  

 

That said, I believe there is much we don't know about the *process* of dying and how we define *dead*.  I think it is more of a process than an "instant".  Obviously, people who are "revived" weren't really dead.  You don't come back from dead.  So when and how does that spirit or energy really leave the body, and what happens during that time frame is intriguing to me.  But probably unrelated to your topic! ;)

 

Also, although I don't believe the spirit energy retains a personality, etc., I do wonder if we make some kind of impression on that energy (if it carries things we imprinted on it) when it returns to God.  Part of my belief in a resurrection is that God has a perfect memory of each person and is able to resurrect or restore them.  But I'm curious about the science behind that and wonder if somehow that is imprinted on that life energy that returns to him.  That's speculation on my part though!!

 

[Mom-ninja.]

 

 I have previously asked in an atheist group a couple of years back if they believed that they had a soul. I got a lot of responses, but I did not have anyone speak up and say that they didn't have one. It was as if no-one wanted to believe or freely admit that they had no soul.

 

Do you think that you want to believe that you have a soul?

Or are you willing to accept that you may not?

 

I'm atheist and I will openly say that I do not believe I have a soul. I do not believe anyone does. (Hang on.....okay I was not struck by lightning ;)  )

 

The answer to your first question above: I used to but now no, I do not. 

and the second question: yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I do not believe we have a soul in any practical sense. I think it's a word used to convey the concept of the self, one's ability to be aware of and ponder his or her existence, thoughts, desires, fears, hopes, future, possibilities, and the like. I can't figure out how any of this is separate from the workings of the physical brain though. Ultimately I think "soul" is a rather romantic word, and not one that references a physiological component of the human body, but one that references our sense of awareness and our relationship with our environment.

 

This is how I think. The word "soul" is simply a word used to describe our self awareness. We use the word soul for lack of any better word at this time. 

[albeto.]

1. Yes, you are correct. The soul of the a person who has not been born again is still attached to their flesh. This is why there were certain conditions in the old testament times that are not necessary today. A person living in the Old Testament time would become unclean if their flesh touched something else unclean. They would have to wash their flesh with water and wait a period of time. (Lev 22:6) A born again believer need not worry about this. (1 Cor 6:11)

Is there something in the bible that makes this suggestion (the cleanliness issue related to the soul being attached to the physical body), or is this your interpretation of the hidden meaning in scripture, the "deeper" level of the message? I think it's a really interesting concept, and it makes sense in it's own way. I just wonder the origins of this hypothesis.

 

So your question is "what happens to the soul of the unsaved person at the time of bodily death?" I think, so far as I understand, that the spirit returns to the Lord. But the soul remains. Of course it will be separated from the flesh on death, but not be given a glorified body. The bible describes that the unsaved will be like a worm 'their worm.' (I think that this may be a physical description that represents being from their father, the devil.)

So if the soul had clothes to wear, we'd see it depart from the body of those who die in front of us? Or would it be separated but contain the same physical space in death as it did in life?

 

Of course, some things I do not fully understand myself or pretend to. I'm going off of what information I've been given.

No worries. Everyone here is. There simply does not exist information about a soul outside religious traditions, and as we can see here, the same religious source inspires very different hypotheses. So, it's all good. :)

 

2. "The soul that is detached would have physical properties if it can accomplish physical feats" "why do we not observe that in the same way we observe our flesh?"

 

I think that the soul is separated by an invisible incision made by God, but it does not come away from the body until death. God made it this way, but I cannot know or explain more than that. People who have out of body experiences would probably have more to say on the matter than I do. I know one lady, a saved believer, who believed she saw herself dragged off the bed out of her body. But these are only stories we hear and can't verify unless it had happened to us.

Out of body experiences are increasingly explained by molecular biology, chemistry, and physics. They can be explained without invoking a supernatural element, although I can respect the fact that the experience feels supernatural to the individual.

[Pam in CT]

:) Great discussion...

 

 

 

This is inspired from recent threads about reincarnation, but the essence of the concept is quite pervasive throughout the forums, as well as throughout the culture. I'm curious about this in two parts. The first being the obvious question, How do you define the soul? If you were to offer a definition, what would it be?

 

The second is a question of methodology. How do you come to this conclusion? What information do you rely on to come to your conclusion? What are your sources?

 

I missed the reincarnation thread...

 

... and, as I think about my own evolution on the subject, which has yet to arrive at what I'd call "conclusion," it maybe makes more sense to tackle the methodology question first...

 

 

I arrived at my current (not conclusive) thinking about the "soul," as well as other, similarly difficult-to-define-or-grasp abstractions, 1) glacially and 2) growing out of a sense of human limits in cognitive and linguistic capacity; and 3) via a very gradual opening-up to consideration of (in your words) "sources" and (again, in your words) "methodology" that were, initially, pretty alien to my (skeptical) innate wiring...

 

...and, to a great extent, 4) by letting go of my original determination that I could not accept a construct unless I was able, end-to-end, describe it, visualize it,

This is why I enjoy history, and not physics. How do you visualize energy in your imagination, kwim? It's so much easier to imagine myself as Claire in 18th century Scotland, and then understand different political or social movements on the effects on society, than it is to imagine myself as a magnetic force, or a force at rest, or whatever!

and "defend" it in sensory, measurable, controlled-experiment or mathematical terms.  (If it's difficult to so envision energy, or other constructs that lie a bit beyond the senses or measurement like love or music... and how immensely more difficult for a construct like ethical consciousness... Such a goal is, I think, quite improbable for a construct like "soul.")

 

 

If someone thinks the soul is some sort of energy, it is not suggesting that anything with energy has a soul in the same sense.

I don't believe in a literal soul.  It's more a whimsical notion to me really.  Like sparkly unicorns. 

 

 

So where I am, at the moment, resting: I use the word "soul" not quite whimsically, but metaphorically, associating it with the part of myself (and others) that wants to "grow toward the light," another metaphor... the aspect of me that wants to be more empathic, more patient, more open to the humanity of other people despite their differences or distance from me, more open to transformative encounters with others, etc... 

 

 

... and while I originally (skeptically, rationally, Enlightment-like) associated those impulses with a sociologically-driven, we're-all-in-this-together-and-therefore-must-work-out-a-way-to-share-the-planet-without-destroying-one-another kind of collective imperative, that accounts, for example, for my decision not to cut other drivers off or to allow the harried mother with the crying baby to go ahead of me in the grocery line...

 

... and while I later (still rationally) amended this sociologically-based ethical construct to further allow as well for a kind of long-term enlightened self interest, that expanded my idea of my "best self" to the voice that noodged me into hauling myself to exercise even when I wasn't in the mood, or to refraining from poor food choices...

 

... the older -- and open-er -- I got, the more conscious I became of pulls toward becoming a "better" person that were not really explainable in either of these terms -- nor did I experience them in those terms... and I started to frame that pull towards being a "better" person in language ("nourishing the soul"; "lurching toward the light"; "good kharma"; "what makes God smile"; etc) that had earlier made me skittish and which I meant metaphorically...

 

 

... and at some level this is merely a linguistic choice, to label that propelling force with that word "soul"... but the longer I sit with that choice of label, the more depth and meaning I find it has, so the longer I've agreed to live with the word, the more fully it resonates...

 

 

 

and there are bits of what pp have described that resonate a good deal for me...

The part of you that isn't a piece of body.

(the "soul" how I'm currently using the metaphor / experiencing the pull may be accountable through neuroscience... but I'm also increasingly open to the possibility that it may not be...)

 

I believe that the person is made up of three things...body, soul , and spirit. The soul is our being, who we are, our personality, ..what makes you who you are. The spirit is the part of us that relates to God and our conscience. The body is our body. (Deep stuff there!) lol

(I don't personally equate God=conscience -- but I find myself speaking metaphorically along the lines of this construct increasingly often -- the part of our selves that inclines toward God / self-betterment / "the light"..)

 

Ha! I tried to, in a concise way, but I know it's not a very satisfactory answer, lol. It would be impossible for me to list all the sources and experiences that have contributed to my beliefs, so I answered with the most scientific one. Anecdotally, my experiences with dying people have shaped my belief that there is *something* that separates from the body at death. During a code (I'm a nurse), I can feel the difference between someone who will survive the code, and someone who has already checked out, so to speak. This is something that is obviously difficult to quantify, as it occurs at a metaphysical level. I choose to describe it as an energy, because I know that is something that our entire universe was created from. We are literally made up of the energy that released in the moment the universe was created. We are all connected to each other by that energy. That, to me, is our soul.

 

 

I also find tremendous metaphoric beauty in the science-based constructs that the original energy of the genesis of the universe is endlessly recycled... and that the matter from that genesis is endlessly recycled... and that, at a molecular level, our atoms are endlessly recycled and... well, reincarnated into different forms of life...

 

I don't currently connect this inter-connectedness with the way I'm currently using the metaphors "soul" and "light" but I may get there if I live long enough, lol...

 

[ocelotmom]

The part of me that watched my car accident from a bird's eye view. I didn't have much time to examine that state, so I can't say much beyond that. It didn't last very long - presumably just long enough for that part of myself to decide that the body wasn't dead after all, so I might as well go back to it.

 

Ha! I tried to, in a concise way, but I know it's not a very satisfactory answer, lol. It would be impossible for me to list all the sources and experiences that have contributed to my beliefs, so I answered with the most scientific one. Anecdotally, my experiences with dying people have shaped my belief that there is *something* that separates from the body at death. During a code (I'm a nurse), I can feel the difference between someone who will survive the code, and someone who has already checked out, so to speak. This is something that is obviously difficult to quantify, as it occurs at a metaphysical level. I choose to describe it as an energy, because I know that is something that our entire universe was created from. We are literally made up of the energy that released in the moment the universe was created. We are all connected to each other by that energy. That, to me, is our soul.

 

I'm a nurse as well. I've never actually participated in a code (my particular line of work doesn't tend to result in them - people are usually either DNR or sent to the hospital because they're unstable before they get to that point), but have cared for numerous people who are close to death. I do feel like there's a tangible point in many cases where the "soul" has checked out, though I have no proof that this is anything spiritual, or, for that matter, anything more than my own perceptions. But I think I know what you mean.

[foxbridgeacademy]

To me, a soul is the energy of the person. I believe that it is the energy of the universe; it came from the universe and will be returned to the universe. I came to this conclusion after learning how the universe came to be, via the Big Bang, and my rudimentary understanding of the physics of the whole thing.

 

I was raised in a fundamental, evangelical religion, and became an adult convert to Catholicism. I would love to believe the doctrine that there is afterlife we will be rewarded in, and will *hopefully* see our loved ones in. But, I don't believe, no matter how hard I try :( I just can't make myself.

:iagree: Especially about the "no matter how hard I've tried", I don't try anymore, makes it a whole lot easier.

 

I'm agnostic leaning Atheist but I do think there is more to us, an energy that is released when we die, the Spark of Life so to speak.  I don't think it's divine, I don't think it was intelligently created, and I don't think that without the body it is anything other then energy (like a toaster and electricity) so that could be a soul, I guess?  Really, I don't know and in the end it's all a bit to "Woo-woo" for me.  

 

Where did this come from?  Lots of conversations with quasi-intelligent, deep thinking people who had way to much time on their hands (Otherwise known as College).  It comes from studying Science, lots of listening, discussion and thinking during that same College career.  To me it makes sense and in the end that's all that matters.   

[albeto.]

:) Great discussion...

I'm enjoying it, too. ^_^

 

... and, as I think about my own evolution on the subject, which has yet to arrive at what I'd call "conclusion," it maybe makes more sense to tackle the methodology question first...

I'm finding the methodologies more interesting than the definitions. So far these definitions are familiar to me, like the traditional biblical ones and the modern energy ones. It's the way in which the different models are constructed that piques my curiosity. The bible has only so many words written in it, and yet for thousands of years, so many, many different opinions have been offered and supported. So how people come up with their understanding is pretty interesting. The modern ones are interesting, too, and while I don't know much about physics, it's been fun talking with and learning from my kids (who do).

 

and "defend" it in sensory, measurable, controlled-experiment or mathematical terms.  (If it's difficult to so envision energy, or other constructs that lie a bit beyond the senses or measurement like love or music... and how immensely more difficult for a construct like ethical consciousness... Such a goal is, I think, quite improbable for a construct like "soul.")

Oh, I disagree. I think love or music are much more readily explainable with the knowledge we already have. I don't find it difficult to examine and explore such concepts like ethical consciousness (or consciousness, ethics, self awareness, qualia, or the like). With the exception of music (unless you mean the enjoyment of music), these are human behaviors, and we can identify different behaviors, subjectively (like self-reporting - on a scale of 1-10, how much one enjoys Mozart or Metallica) and objectively (like measuring brain activity when subject listens to different pieces of music). The concept of the soul has no such component to break down, and as this thread shows, people can't agree if immortal, self-aware, its relationship to the body, or if it's a particular force of energy. Further, there's no way to explore the most fundamental attributes of a soul like we can explore behaviors, thoughts, or emotions.

 

(I don't personally equate God=conscience -- but I find myself speaking metaphorically along the lines of this construct increasingly often -- the part of our selves that inclines toward God / self-betterment / "the light"..)

Which raises the question, how do you define "God," "self-betterment," and "the light"? ;)

 

I also find tremendous metaphoric beauty in the science-based constructs that the original energy of the genesis of the universe is endlessly recycled... and that the matter from that genesis is endlessly recycled... and that, at a molecular level, our atoms are endlessly recycled and... well, reincarnated into different forms of life...

Putting aside the idea of endless energy, from where do you understand that reincarnation exists at the molecular, or atomic level?

[albeto.]

That said, I believe there is much we don't know about the *process* of dying and how we define *dead*.  I think it is more of a process than an "instant".  Obviously, people who are "revived" weren't really dead.  You don't come back from dead.  So when and how does that spirit or energy really leave the body, and what happens during that time frame is intriguing to me.  But probably unrelated to your topic! ;)

Maybe it is off topic, but I find it really interesting. The idea of these events existing as a process works for so many of these kinds of discussions, too. We tend to think of these things as either/or events (either you're alive, or you're not), but like you say, this process might be reversed before it's completed, and if we think about it, the process can take a long, long time. I think of it like going to sleep. We don't instantly fall asleep (although some experience this process much faster than others).

 

Also, although I don't believe the spirit energy retains a personality, etc., I do wonder if we make some kind of impression on that energy (if it carries things we imprinted on it) when it returns to God.  Part of my belief in a resurrection is that God has a perfect memory of each person and is able to resurrect or restore them.  But I'm curious about the science behind that and wonder if somehow that is imprinted on that life energy that returns to him.  That's speculation on my part though!!

If it's not too personal a question, do you believe each person will be resurrected, and have their soul restored? If it is, please don't answer. I understand.

[goldberry]

Maybe it is off topic, but I find it really interesting. The idea of these events existing as a process works for so many of these kinds of discussions, too. We tend to think of these things as either/or events (either you're alive, or you're not), but like you say, this process might be reversed before it's completed, and if we think about it, the process can take a long, long time. I think of it like going to sleep. We don't instantly fall asleep (although some experience this process much faster than others).

 

 

If it's not too personal a question, do you believe each person will be resurrected, and have their soul restored? If it is, please don't answer. I understand.

 

I don't mind answering, if you take my answer with a grain of salt...I'm speaking only for myself. Also, I think ultimately we humans have no way of knowing for sure. 

 

The Bible speaks of a resurrection of righteous and unrighteous, the unrighteous to a resurrection of judgment.  I think the idea of unrighteous being resurrected just to be put to death again for their unrighteousness does not really make any sense. (I believe in hell as eternal death, so it couldn't be just to resurrect them and send them to hell.)  Resurrecting them just to put them immediately to death again would not serve any useful purpose.  So I believe that the unrighteous will be resurrected "to judgment" in the sense of having a chance to respond to the message of God and then judged on the basis of that response.  

 

But, there is also a category the Bible speaks of as "wicked".  Do I know what that entails?  Nope.  Some people say that is anyone who had a *chance* to respond to God's message and didn't.  I don't agree with that, because there are so many other factors at play...birth, upbringing, mental and emotional experiences, etc. etc.  There could be a number of reasons why someone would not respond to God's message that don't involve them being a wicked person.   So who is wicked?  Who would not qualify for a resurrection and an opportunity?  I don't really know, and I don't believe it is anything we can tell from the outside of a person.  I have to trust God to know.  In my mind though, I would think (and hope) that would be a very small number of people. 

 

ETA, just thought about something Jesus said about those who reject the truth "because they love the darkness".  This is what I would imagine refers to the "wicked".  Rejecting the truth because you love the darkness is totally not the same as not being able to discern the truth because of how screwed up this world can be. 

[Rosie_0801]

Maybe it is off topic, but I find it really interesting. The idea of these events existing as a process works for so many of these kinds of discussions, too. We tend to think of these things as either/or events (either you're alive, or you're not), but like you say, this process might be reversed before it's completed, and if we think about it, the process can take a long, long time. I think of it like going to sleep. We don't instantly fall asleep (although some experience this process much faster than others).

 

I read a book about this years and years ago. It might be the sort of book one can enjoy when young enough for death to be mostly an academic topic, but on the other hand, you have some interesting hobbies, so perhaps you'd enjoy it. :p

 

I guess, to quote Princess Bride, you're only "mostly dead" until all the things that keep you alive come to a unanimous decision not to be. So to speak...

[Scarlett]

I don't mind answering, if you take my answer with a grain of salt...I'm speaking only for myself. Also, I think ultimately we humans have no way of knowing for sure.

 

The Bible speaks of a resurrection of righteous and unrighteous, the unrighteous to a resurrection of judgment. I think the idea of unrighteous being resurrected just to be put to death again for their unrighteousness does not really make any sense. (I believe in hell as eternal death, so it couldn't be just to resurrect them and send them to hell.) Resurrecting them just to put them immediately to death again would not serve any useful purpose. So I believe that the unrighteous will be resurrected "to judgment" in the sense of having a chance to respond to the message of God and then judged on the basis of that response.

 

But, there is also a category the Bible speaks of as "wicked". Do I know what that entails? Nope. Some people say that is anyone who had a *chance* to respond to God's message and didn't. I don't agree with that, because there are so many other factors at play...birth, upbringing, mental and emotional experiences, etc. etc. There could be a number of reasons why someone would not respond to God's message that don't involve them being a wicked person. So who is wicked? Who would not qualify for a resurrection and an opportunity? I don't really know, and I don't believe it is anything we can tell from the outside of a person. I have to trust God to know. In my mind though, I would think (and hope) that would be a very small number of people.

 

ETA, just thought about something Jesus said about those who reject the truth "because they love the darkness". This is what I would imagine refers to the "wicked". Rejecting the truth because you love the darkness is totally not the same as not being able to discern the truth because of how screwed up this world can be.

I am curious by nature and often think it will be most interesting to see who is resurrected and who isn't. life deals a pretty crappy hand to many people. Mostly I try to mind my business and accept that God can read hearts and humans cannot.

[Scarlett]

Those out of body experiences can often be explained by lack of oxygen and hallucinations....I actually experienced that sensation of watching myself in a dentist chair when I was having an allergic reaction to a drug I was given. I was no where near death but I was watching the room in a weird way....I can easily see how people think it is the spirit leaving the body. But I do not believe that.

[albeto.]

Those out of body experiences can often be explained by lack of oxygen and hallucinations....I actually experienced that sensation of watching myself in a dentist chair when I was having an allergic reaction to a drug I was given. I was no where near death but I was watching the room in a weird way....I can easily see how people think it is the spirit leaving the body. But I do not believe that.

 

This experience can be recreated in the lab, too.

[Catwoman]

I was taught as a kid that the soul is the part of us that gives us our individual personalities and feelings. That when it leaves the body all that is left is a shell.

 

When I was 13 my dad was in a car accident where a semi truck went into a passenger door of the pickup he was a passenger in. It herniated his brain and completely changed his personality. He wasn't even close to the same person other then that he still looked somewhat the same. After that, my views on souls changed

 

. Now I'm not completely sure what I think a soul is, but I'm rather bending towards it being the energy that makes our bodies function combined with the brain. I mean, it can't just be the energy or that wouldn't change so drastically when the brain changes, but it can't just be the brain because the brain is still in the body when the person dies.

 

If that is what a soul is, then yes I'd say animals have souls too.

I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to your dad, Dory. :(

[Melissa in Australia]

Soul = life force. When you die it ceases to exist and your body slowly returns to dust

 

 

I agree with everything Scarlett said

[Carrie12345]

 How do you define the soul? If you were to offer a definition, what would it be?

 

The second is a question of methodology. How do you come to this conclusion? What information do you rely on to come to your conclusion? What are your sources?

 

 

 

I've never tried to put it into words before, so fingers crossed!

I define the soul as feelings/emotions/experiences, and I do believe the soul "lives on" through the people who were connected to those feelings/emotions/experiences. 

I think I came to that conclusion when my grandfather died. I don't think he's "with me" in the sense that he's somehow actively watching, but that our shared experiences continue to be a piece of MY soul, and I will continue to share some of those with others, which will then last to a degree even when I'm gone.

 

(I'm an atheist.)