The Soul and Death

[greylorn]

Actually, the relevant issue is what I asked in the first post. I’ll consider continuing this discourse when you ask these provocative questions in a way that clearly relates to my original question; when you stop deciding what is “relevant” and “irrelevant” and start wording your statements more respectfully; and when you consider not nitpicking the typos that I make at nearly 3 AM.

I’m a nice guy, and I love me some talk about God, souls, and such. But I hate making things argumentative.

I am delighted to learn that you are a nice guy. Good for you! In my experience those who present themselves as “nice guys” are irrelevant people who stand for nothing, and have no beliefs or thoughts that they are willing to defend in public.

This is a philosophy section, not a mental-massage party. If you do not care to argue, or are incapable of generating a competent argument, and have a problem distinguishing relevant from irrelevant concepts, why not find a back fence chat room where everyone’s opinions are as irrelevant as yours?

 

[Catholic4Christ]

I am delighted to learn that you are a nice guy. Good for you! In my experience those who present themselves as “nice guys” are irrelevant people who stand for nothing, and have no beliefs or thoughts that they are willing to defend in public.

This is a philosophy section, not a mental-massage party. If you do not care to argue, or are incapable of generating a competent argument, and have a problem distinguishing relevant from irrelevant concepts, why not find a back fence chat room where everyone’s opinions are as irrelevant as yours?

I’m sorry that I obviously stand for nothing. How rude of me. “I apologize for engaging you” greylorn.

 

[rom422]

I had hoped for an interesting conversation with you, because you appeared to have some knowledge and curiosity. But, alas, you are just another dogmatist, whose brain, when reading or hearing a statement which conflicts with its programming, is primarily engaged in refuting it. I apologize for engaging you.

Is that how you answer a question, by calling someone a dogmatist who does not agree with you? LOL. Remember that you are in a forum, and that we are also entitled to ask questions. C’mon, what is a soul if it is not a principle of life? Saying that it is connected by a “special circuitry” to the brain does not explain anything until you clarify to me first what it is that is connected to the brain.

TIP: Be calm, my friend. Having recourse to insults is a sign of weakness.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thank you. All I wanted to know was peoples’ thoughts on the human soul at or around the time of bodily death, and what consequences said thoughts might have. Clearly an issue of opinion, not fact.

Opinions are more interesting, anyway. I may have missed it skimming through, did you give your own opinion?

 

[tonyrey]

I am delighted to learn that you are a nice guy. Good for you! In my experience those who present themselves as “nice guys” are irrelevant people who stand for nothing, and have no beliefs or thoughts that they are willing to defend in public.

This is a philosophy section, not a mental-massage party. If you do not care to argue, or are incapable of generating a competent argument, and have a problem distinguishing relevant from irrelevant concepts, why not find a back fence chat room where everyone’s opinions are as irrelevant as yours?

You are witty but your wit is constantly cruel and needs to be corrected by concern for the feelings of others lest your values are seen to undermine the value of your beliefs…

 

[tonyrey]

Necessity? By what standards of ignorance can any topic of interest to a competent human mind be limited to belief and opinion?

I missed the note that this thread was only for those whose small but well-programmed brains operate entirely upon Belief and Opinion, and are not interested in knowledge. Please do not vote this year.

You are witty but your wit is constantly cruel and needs to be corrected by concern for the feelings of others lest your values are seen to undermine the value of your beliefs…

 

[tonyrey]

I had hoped for an interesting conversation with you, because you appeared to have some knowledge and curiosity. But, alas, you are just another dogmatist, whose brain, when reading or hearing a statement which conflicts with its programming, is primarily engaged in refuting it. I apologize for engaging you.

You are witty but your wit is constantly cruel and needs to be corrected by concern for the feelings of others lest your values are seen to undermine the value of your beliefs…

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Opinions are more interesting, anyway. I may have missed it skimming through, did you give your own opinion?

I’m back and forth on this one, which is pretty uncommon for me when it comes to most issues. It is actually a very difficult issue, which is why I asked the question.

I guess I’m inclined to think that the soul departs and the body dies simultaneously. It seems to make the most sense that way. Still, though, some people die on the table and are resuscitated. I really don’t think that doctors have the power to “pull back” the soul, so either this doesn’t “count” as death to God, or maybe the soul does stay behind for a while. I’m still not sure, really.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I guess I’m inclined to think that the soul departs and the body dies simultaneously. It seems to make the most sense that way. Still, though, some people die on the table and are resuscitated. I really don’t think that doctors have the power to “pull back” the soul, so either this doesn’t “count” as death to God, or maybe the soul does stay behind for a while. I’m still not sure, really.

I think part of the discussion would have to be “where” is the soul? Is it something confined to the parameters of the flesh of the body? DR Melvin Morse in his work with NDEs in children, had his first patent who reported (iirc) one say that there’s a thread of light that attaches a person in heaven to their body here. Stephen King uses similar imagery in his novel “Insomnia.”

I think when those “dead” are revived, and when in cases that seem identical they cannot be, we are just really seeing the practical demonstration of God’s Will.

 

[greylorn]

You are witty but your wit is constantly cruel and needs to be corrected by concern for the feelings of others lest your values are seen to undermine the value of your beliefs…

Come on, Tony. My personal values are unimportant. Telling the truth is a hard-learned favorite, and I’ve found that the best way is to get it over and done with. Feelings are just emotions that come and go, as I’ve learned and others will. They are useful sources of information for those few who pay attention.

I’ve learned that coddling anyone’s feelings (my own, too) is an exercise in futility which will help a fool remain a fool. You might want to reopen your Bible and do a serious read of Christ’s words, when he is making corrections to human behavior. He was not nice at all. Maybe in the next PC version of the Bible He will be suggesting, sweetly, that it might be inappropriate for the moneychangers to be doing business in God’s Temple— but that was not the case in the version that I read, where he got angry and physically kicked the bums out.

This is supposedly a philosophy section. Philosophy is about ideas, and real philosophers do not hang out in white robes and university corridors shmoozing one another— unless they are sucking up for a promotion. If someone shows up here presenting dogma in the place of philosophical ideas, do they really belong here? If so, they’ll stick up for themselves and learn things in the process. If not, they will depart, and the threads will not miss them. It is up to them, not me.

Consider my role here as that of a predator, one whose job is to cull the weak from the herd, whether it be ideas or their perpetrators. This thankless job is as essential to civilization as it is to raw nature.

I have noticed that when I have been vilified by yet another good Christian, no one sticks up for me. I’m not surprised, given that all the beatings I’ve received in my life, both physical and economic, have come at the hands of good Christians. But you ought to know enough to at least not pile on— twice, with an instant replay.

I should not have been as surprised and disappointed at your repetitive remarks as i was, given that you are a dogmatist yourself. Don’t worry about my feelings either. I will manage them without coddling or apologies, and adjust my sense of who you are accordingly.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

I think when those “dead” are revived, and when in cases that seem identical they cannot be, we are just really seeing the practical demonstration of God’s Will.

I am somewhat inclined to agree on this. It is kinda what I was (attempting to) get at when I said, “this doesn’t really ‘count’ as a death to God.” You expressed it much better.

Consider my role here as that of a predator, one whose job is to cull the weak from the herd, whether it be ideas or their perpetrators. This thankless job is as essential to civilization as it is to raw nature.

I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, thank you for protecting us from ourselves, and for protecting civilization through these forums.

 

[greylorn]

I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, thank you for protecting us from ourselves, and for protecting civilization through these forums.

While I expect that you speak only for a half-vast majority rather than everyone, I greatly value your personal tribute and keen appreciation of my freely provided services.

 

[tonyrey]

Come on, Tony. My personal values are unimportant. Telling the truth is a hard-learned favorite, and I’ve found that the best way is to get it over and done with. Feelings are just emotions that come and go, as I’ve learned and others will. They are useful sources of information for those few who pay attention.

I’ve learned that coddling anyone’s feelings (my own, too) is an exercise in futility which will help a fool remain a fool. You might want to reopen your Bible and do a serious read of Christ’s words, when he is making corrections to human behavior. He was not nice at all. Maybe in the next PC version of the Bible He will be suggesting, sweetly, that it might be inappropriate for the moneychangers to be doing business in God’s Temple— but that was not the case in the version that I read, where he got angry and physically kicked the bums out.

This is supposedly a philosophy section. Philosophy is about ideas, and real philosophers do not hang out in white robes and university corridors shmoozing one another— unless they are sucking up for a promotion. If someone shows up here presenting dogma in the place of philosophical ideas, do they really belong here? If so, they’ll stick up for themselves and learn things in the process. If not, they will depart, and the threads will not miss them. It is up to them, not me.

Consider my role here as that of a predator, one whose job is to cull the weak from the herd, whether it be ideas or their perpetrators. This thankless job is as essential to civilization as it is to raw nature.

I have noticed that when I have been vilified by yet another good Christian, no one sticks up for me. I’m not surprised, given that all the beatings I’ve received in my life, both physical and economic, have come at the hands of good Christians. But you ought to know enough to at least not pile on— twice, with an instant replay.

I should not have been as surprised and disappointed at your repetitive remarks as i was, given that you are a dogmatist yourself. Don’t worry about my feelings either. I will manage them without coddling or apologies, and adjust my sense of who you are accordingly.

I’ve received my share of vilification and I’ve been reported several times but I don’t believe in taking it out on others. Our job is to cull weak ideas not their perpetrators. It is painful enough to be shown to be wrong without being insulted into the bargain.

I made my comments not only out of compassion for your victims but out of concern that you may be banned. If you wish to take my advice the wrong way so be it. Time will tell whether I am misguided…

 

[jacob622]

I’m starting to tell that it clearly doesn’t matter what I believe, so long as it can be turned into an arguing point :ehh:

I don’t really see why individual bacteria can’t have individual mortal souls, but I also don’t really think God cares that much whether or not I believe in a single-celled organism’s “soul-status.” I don’t think it is really of much consequence. But thanks for pointing out that I wasn’t considering bacteria in my post, mea culpa.

As for multi-cellular organisms, I’m a Classical Studies major, not a Biology major, so I can’t say I know at what point individual organisms became one organism, or if it happened that way. I don’t think it matters that much. Nor do I really think it matters if plants have mortal souls, or mitochondria, or viruses. God did whatever He wanted to get us to this point, I’m not really going to put limits on Him. Perhaps there’s a difference between life as defined by biological science and God-given life that we haven’t addressed. The point is, who knows.

Anyways, the whole point is about whether or not the soul is the principal of life. And, as addressed earlier, I think that this wasn’t meant as life as a biologist would describe it, but human life, in respect to how we are considered “special” amongst God’s creation.

Ya ! thanks! i too pray for all to live the life with lots of fun and joy!!!
as i like the way you written your post!!!


Buy Generic Viagra

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Ya ! thanks! i too pray for all to live the life with lots of fun and joy!!!
as i like the way you written your post!!!


Buy Generic Viagra

XD

we have a tricky one, here!

 

[greylorn]

I’ve received my share of vilification and I’ve been reported several times but I don’t believe in taking it out on others. Our job is to cull weak ideas not their perpetrators. It is painful enough to be shown to be wrong without being insulted into the bargain.

I made my comments not only out of compassion for your victims but out of concern that you may be banned. If you wish to take my advice the wrong way so be it. Time will tell whether I am misguided…

Tonyrey,
Your point is well taken. I shall make it a point to focus upon ideas. Yet, perpetrators of poor ideas may be the most important target.

Consider Hitler, for example. He had no original ideas himself, but managed to become the collector and purveyor of a major set of fundamentally evil concepts. The ideas remain, scattered here and there among ineffectual neo-Nazi groups, and will live longer than cockroaches. Yet they await another individual who has the power to concentrate and intensify them. When that happens the world will find itself in a conflict that makes WWII look like a football game.

Or, consider the current socialist leadership of the U.S. Obama has no new ideas, and is simply another socialist with a lot of financial backing and a convincing mouth. Attacking socialist ideas, whether in the form of U.S. style health care or National Socialism (the NAZI party) will never make a difference. It is like shooting BB’s into The Blob.

IMO ideas must be dealt with at two levels.

1. The ideas themselves.
2. The faulty logic and incompetent thought processes of one
   who presents them.

If the faulty thought processes, in particular the dependence upon dogma (whether atheistic or religious) is not addressed, the individual will not change and will continue to propagate bad ideas faster than fruit flies breed new fruit flies.

It is a common and politically correct process for intellectuals to hide behind ideas, books, and institutions of both secular and sectarian varieties. I’m not an intellectual and have no hiding place. I know the rules of intellectual political correctness, having worked under them long enough, but I do not like them and have chosen not to follow them.

I have been criticized as an individual, as you’ve done, and it is fine with me. I’ve chosen to post only on CAF’s philosophy thread, and figure that accepting personal and intellectual criticism in whatever forms or combinations they may appear is part of the process. I would not try out for the Green Bay Packers because if I did so, in the first practice session some highly trained 300 pound athlete would break the bones that have not already been broken in one easy hit.

Same thing here. This is a clearly labeled philosophy forum. If nitwits who have never read a philosophy book choose to show up here and engage me by reciting dogma, they will receive the same honest response that you get when you offer logic and thoughtful reason, or, now and then, dogma. I do not scan various threads seeking fools to attack. I do not even initiate my own threads anymore, having discovered that they are always sandbagged by dogmatists.

I do not even bother much anymore with fools posting on threads that I am following. I will make comments, sometimes, if some nincompoop proposes his own laws of physics or writes something so egregiously stupid that it is too much of a struggle for me to let it pass.

But if some dogmatist wants to confront me, he, she, or it should first put on a helmet— or in this context, read a few books and do some honest thinking. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey,
Your point is well taken. I shall make it a point to focus upon ideas. Yet, perpetrators of poor ideas may be the most important target.

Consider Hitler, for example. He had no original ideas himself, but managed to become the collector and purveyor of a major set of fundamentally evil concepts. The ideas remain, scattered here and there among ineffectual neo-Nazi groups, and will live longer than cockroaches. Yet they await another individual who has the power to concentrate and intensify them. When that happens the world will find itself in a conflict that makes WWII look like a football game.

Or, consider the current socialist leadership of the U.S. Obama has no new ideas, and is simply another socialist with a lot of financial backing and a convincing mouth. Attacking socialist ideas, whether in the form of U.S. style health care or National Socialism (the NAZI party) will never make a difference. It is like shooting BB’s into The Blob.

IMO ideas must be dealt with at two levels.

1. The ideas themselves.
2. The faulty logic and incompetent thought processes of one
   who presents them.

If the faulty thought processes, in particular the dependence upon dogma (whether atheistic or religious) is not addressed, the individual will not change and will continue to propagate bad ideas faster than fruit flies breed new fruit flies.

It is a common and politically correct process for intellectuals to hide behind ideas, books, and institutions of both secular and sectarian varieties. I’m not an intellectual and have no hiding place. I know the rules of intellectual political correctness, having worked under them long enough, but I do not like them and have chosen not to follow them.

I have been criticized as an individual, as you’ve done, and it is fine with me. I’ve chosen to post only on CAF’s philosophy thread, and figure that accepting personal and intellectual criticism in whatever forms or combinations they may appear is part of the process. I would not try out for the Green Bay Packers because if I did so, in the first practice session some highly trained 300 pound athlete would break the bones that have not already been broken in one easy hit.

Same thing here. This is a clearly labeled philosophy forum. If nitwits who have never read a philosophy book choose to show up here and engage me by reciting dogma, they will receive the same honest response that you get when you offer logic and thoughtful reason, or, now and then, dogma. I do not scan various threads seeking fools to attack. I do not even initiate my own threads anymore, having discovered that they are always sandbagged by dogmatists.

I do not even bother much anymore with fools posting on threads that I am following. I will make comments, sometimes, if some nincompoop proposes his own laws of physics or writes something so egregiously stupid that it is too much of a struggle for me to let it pass.

But if some dogmatist wants to confront me, he, she, or it should first put on a helmet— or in this context, read a few books and do some honest thinking. Is that really too much to ask?

Not if your shafts are moderately barbed, old friend.

The simplest - but perhaps discourteous - solution is not to reply. I’m wondering which is the lesser evil…

 

[greylorn]

Not if your shafts are moderately barbed, old friend.

The simplest - but perhaps discourteous - solution is not to reply. I’m wondering which is the lesser evil…

Your notion of a “lesser evil” is a curious insertion. It suggests that you regard any offense, correction, or reprimand that might insult some nit’s tender ego as an evil act. This carries PC way too far.

I do not find issues of “good vs. evil” in any way involved in the mechanical aspects of these conversations. Is it evil to hurt someone’s feelings? I certainly hope not, because otherwise there would be a hundred perfectly lovely women who should be regarded as evil, for nothing worse than finding me unattractive and telling me to eff off.

I consider the potential value of every post, both short and long term, and make a choice based upon mood and whim. Some choices work well; others pretty much suck. Effectiveness seems to be a function more of the intrinsic honesty or personal integrity of a correspondent than any other factor. I’d expected it to be a function of intelligence, but that is absolutely not the case.

My shafts are mere dart-points, designed to be extracted as easily as they entered. None come with barbs or toxins, none are designed to rip the mind’s flesh or inject a poison, and all are targeted for the gluteous maximus (butt). If someone well pricked is too unconscious to reach behind itself and extract the offensive barb, I can only conclude that they want it to stay there and fester until it gets their limited attention.

 

[tonyrey]

Your notion of a “lesser evil” is a curious insertion. It suggests that you regard any offense, correction, or reprimand that might insult some nit’s tender ego as an evil act. This carries PC way too far.

I do not find issues of “good vs. evil” in any way involved in the mechanical aspects of these conversations. Is it evil to hurt someone’s feelings? I certainly hope not, because otherwise there would be a hundred perfectly lovely women who should be regarded as evil, for nothing worse than finding me unattractive and telling me to eff off.

I consider the potential value of every post, both short and long term, and make a choice based upon mood and whim. Some choices work well; others pretty much suck. Effectiveness seems to be a function more of the intrinsic honesty or personal integrity of a correspondent than any other factor. I’d expected it to be a function of intelligence, but that is absolutely not the case.

My shafts are mere dart-points, designed to be extracted as easily as they entered. None come with barbs or toxins, none are designed to rip the mind’s flesh or inject a poison, and all are targeted for the gluteous maximus (butt). If someone well pricked is too unconscious to reach behind itself and extract the offensive barb, I can only conclude that they want it to stay there and fester until it gets their limited attention.

It would be fascinating to know how the possessors of the punctured glutei maximi react mentally to your observations but I suppose my curiosity is completely irrelevant to the topic - unless it is the last dart that drives them to end their physical existence in this world… and raises the question of whether their souls remain unaffected.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please do not quote spammers.
Just report them, thanks