Why aren't soul and mind considered the same thing? What makes the mind different than the soul anyway? ++++++++++++++++++= 03-31-06, 04:16 PM clarebear The mind conveys messages to the brain which gives you a thought or feeling. These thoughts or feelings determine the state of your overall well being.
This overall well being defines your inner self. The inner self is your soul. This is sometimes called an ego or spirit.
03-31-06, 04:43 PM FredPuli So what happens to the soul when the electrical impulses that are the brain, the mind,in operation stop?
03-31-06, 05:00 PM newnickname I wouldn't agree that the mind conveys messages to the brain.
Maybe, the mind is what we call the (artificial?) construct of character/emotions/personal history/thoughts/ideas that is created by electrical impulses in the brain. It's an abstract thing - kind of like a tune, which is created by notes formed by vibrations in the air from a musical instrument.
Maybe the difference is that the mind dies along with the brain (as the tune would with the destruction of the instrument) but the soul is supposed to go on forever.
I think, perhaps, that Buddhism proposes two kinds of soul; one of them is more personal (it's just the thing that animates us, that makes the difference between dead and living matter), and one (the real one) is actually indivisible from the larger, unified soul of the whole universe, but we falsely believe it to be 'our own soul'.
03-31-06, 05:05 PM clarebear When messages are no longer transmitted, the brain is not aware the soul exists. The brain is the core of thought and emotion. Does the soul exist without a brain? Nobody knows for sure. This is where different religious views come into play. From a scientific point of view, if the brain does not function then that is it. You are dead- end of story. Any religion one chooses can make them feel better about this. Messages are transmitted to your brain, while it is still active, that there IS more to life than just electrical impulses. Some call this faith.
03-31-06, 06:57 PM babthrower The mind is our perceived experience of the brain and associated nervous system.
Without a brain there is no mind. But a brain may be kept alive even when the mind no longer functions.
The soul is an imaginary entity which according to some exists before our birth and survives our death. Like all imaginary entities, it cannot be weighed, measured, sensed in any way. Its presence cannot be detected in a living body, nor can its departure be detected in any way that is independent of brain death.
Yet this incorporeal entity is supposed to carry with it a lifetime of memories and a whole load of virtue or sin, and the soul will be sensible of the pleasures or pains of the afterlife.
03-31-06, 07:33 PM jusork It sounds like the mind and soul aren't independent of each other. Are they interconnected but still separate entities?
03-31-06, 07:48 PM clarebear
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: The mind is our perceived experience of the brain and associated nervous system.
Without a brain there is no mind. But a brain may be kept alive even when the mind no longer functions...
The brain is never kept alive. Body functions are kept moving by machines and drugs. The brain is still dead. You can not artificially create brain activity.
quote: The soul is an imaginary entity which according to some exists before our birth and survives our death. Like all imaginary entities, it cannot be weighed, measured, sensed in any way. Its presence cannot be detected in a living body, nor can its departure be detected in any way that is independent of brain death.
I agree.
03-31-06, 09:03 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by clarebear:
The brain is never kept alive. Body functions are kept moving by machines and drugs. The brain is still dead. You can not artificially create brain activity.
Depends what you mean by 'alive'. By 'alive', I mean 'not rotting'. I didn't mean 'functioning normally'.
But even 'not rotting' can't be maintained forever by machines. Some tissues degrade even if oxygenated and supplied with sugars. At the very least they atrophy.
04-01-06, 06:31 AM tsaeb Heart is that desperately wicked seat of emotions within the mind.
Soul is perfect heart, which only God has, unless He imputes such a perfect heart to an individual. This happens from time to time, depending on whether one is being Spirit led.
Mind may as well be brain, except that mind includes heart, while brain is usually thought of as the seat of reasoning.
Spirit is perfect mind. The Holy Spirit is God's perfect mind. The human mind must continually be renewed by the Holy Spirit from mind into spirit.
heart - human emotions, imperfect, rarely soul in human
soul - godly, perfect, in human when Spirit led
mind - human reasoning but contains heart, imperfect, renews into Spirit in human
spirit - godly, perfect, in human when Spirit led
the Holy Spirit - God's Spirit, sometimes our spirit
"Praise the Lord, O, my soul, and all that is within me." "God is Spirit, and is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth." So God, who is Spirit and is to be worshipped when our minds have renewed into spirit, will also be praised by soul within us. In short, when the Holy Spirit indwells us, our minds become spirit, and our hearts become souls. For how long? Ahem.
04-01-06, 11:30 AM babthrower Aristotle taught that animals and plants have souls to animate their bodies, but these souls die when the animal or plant dies, whereas the human soul is immortal. This became the Roman Catholic belief through the Scholastics.
I guess this derives from an earlier folk-belief, that the soul is the 'life' of the body.
Some primitive people must have believed that the soul can re-enter and re-animate the body after death, which may have given rise to the idea of ghosts, and may even have led to burial and cremation practices. If animals brought part of a body back near the campsite, perhaps primitive people thought it was trying to get back home, but then the soul left it again. And so that it would 'rest in peace', they buried it, or burned it, or placed a cairn of stones over it.
04-01-06, 12:48 PM clarebear
quote: Originally posted by tsaeb:
Soul is perfect heart, which only God has, unless He imputes such a perfect heart to an individual. This happens from time to time, depending on whether one is being Spirit led.
Soul is perfect heart. I like that. I do think people can have an evil soul. That is called rotten to the core. Wink
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: ...Some primitive people must have believed that the soul can re-enter and re-animate the body after death, which may have given rise to the idea of ghosts, and may even have led to burial and cremation practices...
That is interesting Babs. Even some modern people believe the soul can re-enter and re-animate the body after death. I have read that some people, when they died, felt themselves floating up above the table. They believed this was their soul leaving their body. They even looked down on themselves and all the staff in the hospital room. Their "soul" then returned to the body. I have heard many accounts of the soul departing and re-entering.
04-01-06, 01:17 PM juanruiz
quote: I have read that some people, when they died, felt themselves floating up above the table. They believed this was their soul leaving their body. They even looked down on themselves and all the staff in the hospital room.
Which poses the question: Why haven't all had this "post-mortem" experience?
04-01-06, 01:27 PM clarebear Maybe the ones who had the "post-mortem" experience were on better medication!
04-01-06, 01:33 PM juanruiz That could well be. CB. Further, those who claimed to see various phenomena (lights, angels, and the like) voiced the beliefs of their particular religion. (There's a study on that somewhere, but I can't find it.)
04-01-06, 02:03 PM clarebear Kevin Williams researched near death experiences.
(copied from link above) One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system. (Jody Long)
quote: Originally posted by clarebear: Even some modern people believe the soul can re-enter and re-animate the body after death. I have read that some people, when they died, felt themselves floating up above the table. They believed this was their soul leaving their body. They even looked down on themselves and all the staff in the hospital room. Their "soul" then returned to the body. I have heard many accounts of the soul departing and re-entering.
Military pilots who experience 'blackout' due to what is called maximum g-force report many of the same sensations as those who have undergone a near death experience. Hovering above the body, seeing dead relatives, a bright light, etc.
It's all in the mind. Er, the brain.
04-02-06, 12:56 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by jusork: It sounds like the mind and soul aren't independent of each other. Are they interconnected but still separate entities?
The soul is an unnecessary artefact. Everything about human experience can be explained in terms of the brain including the nervous system, and consciousness (the 'mind').
The mind is the sum total of our experience: "perceptions, recollections, dreams, pains (whether real or phantom), mental images, mental dialogues, moods, anticipations, desires and hallucinations", according to MacLennan.
The rule of parsimony instructs us not to use unnecessary hypotheses.
People who believe that consciousness persists after death use the term 'soul' to describe the surviving entity.
04-02-06, 04:52 AM Professor In 1975 Raymond Moody wrote "Life After Life", describing and coining the term near-death experience (NDE). When I read it I was intrigued to learn that many survivors of cardiac arrests shared certain experiences such as being outside their bodies, floating and euphoric, sometimes with bright lights or tunnels. There's no real dispute that patients have actually experienced these things.
That NDE represents a supernatural phenomenon (ascent to heaven, soul departing body, crossing over to the other side, etc.) has been sharply disputed. There's a sizeable skeptical literature on NDE (see an overview at Skeptic's Dictionary) suggesting that NDE is an altered state of consciousness associated with cerebral ischemia (oxygen deprivation). A number of explanations consistent with medical science have been advanced to explain sensations of bright lights (Have You Seen The Light, 1995) or tunnels (Darkness, Tunnels, and Light, 1994) based on known principles of neurophysiology. Some of the elements of NDE can be reproduced with drugs. Not everything can be explained yet, of course, and this kind of research is prickly because there's so little data, thank goodness!
But assuredly there's no evidence that NDE is supernatural. The Kevin Wiliams link posted by Clarebear above is full of statements like:
quote:
...the evidence suggests that people actually journey beyond death during near-death experiences.
Too bad he doesn't see fit to offer us any evidence he speaks of for this remarkable claim. But the best stuff concerns the silver cord. What, you never heard of the silver cord? That's what holds the soul and body together, silly.
quote:
During the dying process, as the spirit body leaves the physical body and moves farther away it, the silver cord becomes thinner as it is stretched to its limit and becomes severed. When this occurs, the spirit body is released from being attached to the physical body. At this point, it becomes impossible for the spirit body to ever return to the physical body.
See, it's so simple. No offense, clare, but you picked a real howler of a website -- he just makes it up as he goes.
04-02-06, 12:04 PM babthrower Some people use self-strangulation to cause a psychedelic experience when the brain is deprived of oxygen. It's practically a fad among teenagers, especially males. Not recommended. There have been a number of cases of people who didn't recover consciousness.
I thought that he recorded other people's experiences. I didn't think he added his own opinions at all. I should reread that again.
As for the silver cord, that IS silly.
Babthrower
Many teens masturbate while choking themselves. Many die trying to reach that oxygen deprived experience. +++++++++++++++++++++++++= 04-02-06, 02:53 PM babthrower It would be interesting to see the differences between all NDE's, taking cultural considerations into account.
If a common visual hallucination is a tunnel and a light, perhaps UFO Religion people would see the figures at the end of the tunnel as having antennae instead of halos.
04-02-06, 06:23 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
quote: Originally posted by jusork: It sounds like the mind and soul aren't independent of each other. Are they interconnected but still separate entities?
The soul is an unnecessary artefact. Everything about human experience can be explained in terms of the brain including the nervous system, and consciousness (the 'mind').
The mind is the sum total of our experience: "perceptions, recollections, dreams, pains (whether real or phantom), mental images, mental dialogues, moods, anticipations, desires and hallucinations", according to MacLennan.
Here.
The rule of parsimony instructs us not to use unnecessary hypotheses.
People who believe that consciousness persists after death use the term 'soul' to describe the surviving entity.
I'd definitely have to agree with that.
(By the way, I thought 'artefact' was a typo until I double clicked it. Crazy British variants. Razz)
04-02-06, 07:39 PM Professor
quote: Originally posted by clarebear: I thought that he recorded other people's experiences. I didn't think he added his own opinions at all. I should reread that again.
The website's home page links to an 'About' page that begins: "Greetings! My name is Kevin Williams and I am the owner and webmaster of this website." The whole show is classic pseudoscience: The author heavily promotes himself; bold claims are made without substantiation; celebrity names are dropped and people with impressive-sounding degrees or titles are worked into the text whenever possible; the arguments don't follow strict logical deduction; and so forth. Williams's classification system for types of death is contrived and non-standard. It was never mentioned during the Schiavo controversy or related stories in the news.
To its credit, it mentions believer-turned-skeptic Susan Blackmore and her research (real science) into NDE, but even there he casts doubt on her avowed skepticism. Not a class act.
My guess is Williams is trying to make money with book and other merchandise tailored for the gullible with an interest in NDE.
04-02-06, 08:04 PM juanruiz
quote: My guess is Williams is trying to make money with book and other merchandise tailored for the gullible with an interest in NDE.
Nah! Say it ain't so, Joe! No one would ever do that.
04-02-06, 10:48 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Some people use self-strangulation to cause a psychedelic experience when the brain is deprived of oxygen. It's practically a fad among teenagers, especially males. Not recommended. There have been a number of cases of people who didn't recover consciousness.
Choking game
My girlfriends and I used to play a similar game at slumber parties when I was in middle school, although the way we did it you couldn't end up choking yourself to death. Instead, we basically made ourselves faint. I won't explain how, because I'm sure it's dangerous and it is definitely not something I want to teach to any young lurkers who might read this, but come to think of it, I can see how it might seem similar to an NDE. I remember after having been made to faint, feeling strongly that hours had passed when I'd only been out for a few seconds, and having a vague memory of having been surrounded by people who were talking and a sense that they had said very important things that I needed to share, but upon waking whatever important things I thought they said faded (like a dream) before I could express it to others.
Interesting. It had never occurred to me that this might be similar to the kind of experience people have with NDEs. Kind of sad to think it's just oxygen deprivation, I have to say. I like to think there's something to the NDEs. Sometimes science is such a bummer. Frown
04-02-06, 10:51 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: I think, perhaps, that Buddhism proposes two kinds of soul; one of them is more personal (it's just the thing that animates us, that makes the difference between dead and living matter), and one (the real one) is actually indivisible from the larger, unified soul of the whole universe, but we falsely believe it to be 'our own soul'.
This sounds more like a Hindu belief than a Buddhist one. Buddhists don't really believe in a soul. Buddhists do, however, believe in mind- it is consciousness, basically. You could say that there are eyes, and then there is sight. They are different but related. There is a brain and there is mind. They are different but related.
04-03-06, 02:01 AM babthrower
quote: I remember after having been made to faint, feeling strongly that hours had passed when I'd only been out for a few seconds, and having a vague memory of having been surrounded by people who were talking and a sense that they had said very important things that I needed to share, but upon waking whatever important things I thought they said faded (like a dream) before I could express it to others.
Like trying to remember the wonderful insights one has had on pot or acid. Well, they seemed wonderful at the time!
I remember once when I almost drowned, I was about 22 or 23. I had stopped trying not to swallow water. (You can try to stop, but not for long, the reflex just takes over as you try to breathe underwater and automotically you swallow water instead of breathing it into your lungs. ) Then I got this really dreamy feeling, and I thought, "Well, this is it then, " and I was feeling kind of floaty (ironic, since I was underwater) and suddenly I felt someone tugging my hair. I thought, "I won't struggle or panic, because I don't want to scare whoever is trying to pull me out," and the guy (who had seen me go under, and come over, and seen this hair floating down about 3 or 4 feet) just grabbed for the hair. Later I told him I had decided not to struggle, and he said if I'd struggled (as drowning people sometimes do) he would have knocked me out!!! So much for chivalry.
So it was no light, no tunnel, but it was kind of a relaxed, even contented feeling.
My dad told me he had typhoid fever when he was about 17 (that would have been in 1905) and he was so sick he could not speak or open his eyes, but he could hear people. He heard my grandmother say to my aunt (his older sister), "You must sew him a shroud, for he will not live the night." Then he heard more voices, and women crying, and he realized that all the relatives had gathered to say goodbye. He wanted to tell them not to cry, that it wasn't so bad, he felt quite happy and peaceful. Finally he opened his eyes and managed a bit of a smile. With that everyone sobbed lounder! But that night the fever broke and the next morning he was fully conscious. But he had lost masses of weight. (150 to 85 pounds.) And all his hair fell out! And when it grew back, it was jet black! (It had been ash blond.)
So it seems that there are various mental states possible, as the brain begins to fail, ranging from peaceful to ecstatic.
I imagine a violent death would be pretty bad, though.
04-03-06, 03:14 AM tsaeb I was just today recalling the scripture that "this mortal must put on immortality," and I replaced "put on" with "pretend" to get "this mortal must pretend immortality." So the concept of immortality seems to be very much personal, or distinct. Well, at least, I never felt comfortable with putting on immortality as an article of clothing: pretension is more comprehensible to me.
04-03-06, 09:22 AM newnickname Putting that snippet -"this mortal must put on immortality" - back into context, it's clear that it is not an instruction to individuals to pretend anything. It's a description of what will happen 'when the last trumpet sounds':
'50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55"Where, O death, is your victory?'
(And, of course, you should check whether or not 'put on' has the same dual meaning in Greek as it does in English, to see if you've run into that anglo-centrism problem again.)
04-03-06, 10:45 AM Sarai I was thinking about this thread as I was falling asleep last night, and I remembered having read somewhere that Buddhism regards the breath as the link between mind and body. Without the breath, they are not joined together.
I can't find where I read that, so it is possible that I'm remembering incorrectly, but if it is accurate, it is interesting to think that it is oxygen deprivation that gives people such strange "spiritual" experiences. I suppose it is possible that both science and religion are accurate - that it IS oxygen deprivation that causes those experiences, that the experiences are real, and that they are something being experienced by mind but not by body (in other words, something real that is spiritually but not materially true - something happening in another realm of existence).
I know that there is no particular reason to add another explanation beyond oxygen deprivation for such experiences, but on the other hand, I see no particular reason not to.
04-03-06, 11:30 AM babthrower
quote: I see no particular reason not to.
I think the only reason why some people end as theists and others as atheists has to do with where we feel 'okay'.
We can't base it on reasoning. There's no evidence based on reasoning to lead us to believe the consciousness survives brain death. But there's no reason to reject the belief in survival either: it's a metaphysical belief, and as such is outside of the usual framework.
I fell more 'okay' accepting that my consciousness will end than accepting the clamorous demands of the many religions that compete for our loyalty unto death.
Theists accept the religion they were taught, or find one more personally congenial, or spend the rest of their lives as seekers.
So as it's been said, we believe what we want to believe.
04-03-06, 11:38 AM Sarai Babthrower, I agree - it comes down to comfort level. I should add that I'm not a theist, though. I'm attracted to Buddhism, which has a spiritual view of life without belief in God.
04-03-06, 12:30 PM VelvetVoice I think this thread is great, and I'll go back and read it in depth.
I'm fascinated with NDE, but never had one. Although I've had such things as chemical highs, runner's highs, lover's highs and even musical highs. It's almost like you're mind is finally running on all cylinders. But it's something that doesn't last. The euphoria dissipates, and you find yourself striving for the next one. One should never count on the highs, although they are great experiences.
Also watched a bio on Esther Williams, the actress who was an Olympic swimmer. She'd get 'raptures of the deep', because she'd be underwater for so long, she would forget that she'd have to get back to the surface for air. They had to pull her out to snap her out of it.
04-03-06, 12:34 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: She'd get 'raptures of the deep', because she'd be underwater for so long, she would forget that she'd have to get back to the surface for air. They had to pull her out to snap her out of it.
Big Grin Yes, forgetting to breathe can have serious consequences unless something snaps you out of it.
Sarai I have a Western Buddhist daughter. I like her beliefs. They seem quite sane to me.
04-03-06, 01:00 PM Professor Babs: That's quite a story of your near-drowning -- we're all lucky you survived to enlighten us here on AP. Smile
JR: Yes, I can be really profound... Wink
Babthower says:
quote:
We can't base it on reasoning. There's no evidence based on reasoning to lead us to believe the consciousness survives brain death. But there's no reason to reject the belief in survival either: it's a metaphysical belief, and as such is outside of the usual framework.
At the risk of going off-topic (soul v. mind) I'd like to mention fideism: "...belief systems that hold, on various grounds, that reason is irrelevant to religious faith have been labelled as fideism." Here's another link.
Martin Gardner -- skeptic, author, critic, former Scientific American math columnist who epitomizes rationality -- was a self-avowed theologian-turned-atheist who now calls himself a fideist. In his 90's, he admits that his beliefs give him comfort even though he realizes that there is no evidence for an afterlife. (Sorry, I don't have a direct quote at hand.) Interesting guy.
04-03-06, 01:25 PM clarebear
quote: Originally posted by Sarai: I know that there is no particular reason to add another explanation beyond oxygen deprivation for such experiences, but on the other hand, I see no particular reason not to.
When I was going through my divorce I lost a lot of weight. I got so small that I kept passing out. I would just be walking, and fall to the floor. That is such a weird feeling! Anyway, I never felt a euphoric feeling from passing out. I just felt faint, very tired and dizzy. Isn't that a lack of oxygen? I didn't feel my soul doing anything. I must have missed it. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Wink
04-03-06, 01:54 PM babthrower I'm just reading a book about the making of the Altman movie, Nashville. (One of my all-time favorites.) The book describes how Ronee Blakly, who played the c&w singer Barbara Jean, had to diet throughout the making of the movie in order to project the character's fragility. The actress wrote two songs during the filming and she sang these in the film. I wonder whether her 'altered state' affected her creativity. I think they're pretty nice songs. She kept passing out, too, but I think it was acting. Her character Barbara Jean suffered from chronic bad health due to overwork.
Maybe your weakness was low blood sugar, not low oxygen. Low blood sugar is a bummer.
Prof, thanks for the link. I thought that most religions took that attitude (fideism). Especially after being pummelled for a few hours by skeptics. They just throw up their hands and say, "Oh, all right then, have it your way. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. Anyhow, if it could be proved, there would be no virtue in faith, would there?"
Thus making a virtue of necessity.
04-03-06, 02:05 PM clarebear
quote: Maybe your weakness was low blood sugar, not low oxygen. Low blood sugar is a bummer.
I think my problem was my ex-husband. I feel much better now. Big Grin
04-03-06, 02:41 PM clarebear Juan stated on page one that those who claimed to see various phenomena (lights, angels, and the like) voiced the beliefs of their particular religion. I wonder if people who believe in Jesus see him in their own image. Upon death, would someone black see Jesus as a black man? Would someone Hispanic, Indian or another race see him to look as they do?
Note: I have another thread about the Face of Jesus so I don't want to go off topic with what Jesus really looks like.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 5308 | Location: The Motor City | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by newnickname: Putting that snippet -"this mortal must put on immortality" - back into context, it's clear that it is not an instruction to individuals to pretend anything. It's a description of what will happen 'when the last trumpet sounds':
'50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55"Where, O death, is your victory?'
(And, of course, you should check whether or not 'put on' has the same dual meaning in Greek as it does in English, to see if you've run into that anglo-centrism problem again.)
I knew that you would jump right on my remark, which is one reason why it is just a snippet. At least, you could have put it into the KJV from which I "snipped" it.
What you call an "anglo-centrism problem" is yours, not mine. Since every part of every character in the Bible is ripe for prophesying and already is in the English tongue (here, out of the Greek), it is allowable to interpret the tongue, or to give it new meaning. Admit that you have not seen the vision of the tongue (the one in our mouths) or the "last trump" in I Corinthians 15.52, which scripture in the KJV is trying to say that the scripture on the first trumpet in Revelation 8.7 will be interpreted when the vision of the last trump is identified.
You seem to think that we put on immortality after we die physically, but I Corinthians 15.54-57 informs us that when we shall have put on immortality, that is when we will know that there is no death. This occurs before we die physically. Verse 57 informs us about "thanks be to God," not about "thanks will be to God." Obviously, Paul already knew about what he was writing, having experienced it. Broadly, Paul is writing about his oneness with God as incorruption and immortality, two of God's attributes, and he is saying that we can attain oneness long before physical death. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 04-04-06, 09:49 AM newnickname
quote: 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
That's about the future, isn't it? The hocus-pocus about immortality and imperishability is going to happen to 'the dead' (and maybe, if you want to take it that way, to any living who are around at the last trumpet). Taking the conventional 'thanks be to God' at the end of the passage to mean that it all refers to the present is a bit of a stretch. I don't see anything in the passage that suggests people can put on immortality before they die physically, whatever that means (how would you know you were immortal until you didn't die... Confused).
(Have you checked to see if the 'put on/pretend' pun works in Greek? Maybe it does - in which case you wouldn't have to tie yourself in knots trying to justify your linguistic laziness.)
All this does suggest, however, that Christian scripture is not too clear for us on the soul - let alone the difference between mind and brain. Possibly the writers of the scriptures didn't see these things the way we do.
04-04-06, 10:08 AM newnickname And then there's Spinoza...
'In the middle of the 17th century, Spinoza took on Descartes and lost.
According to Descartes' famous dualist theory, human beings were composed of physical bodies and immaterial minds. Spinoza disagreed. In "The Ethics," his masterwork, published after his death in 1677, he argued that body and mind are not two separate entities but one continuous substance.
As for Descartes' view of the mind as a reasoning machine, Spinoza thought that was dead wrong. Reason, he insisted, is shot through with emotion. More radical still, he claimed that thoughts and feelings are not primarily reactions to external events but first and foremost about the body. In fact, he suggested, the mind exists purely for the body's sake, to ensure its survival.
For his beliefs, Spinoza was vilified and — for extended periods — ignored. Descartes, on the other hand, was immortalized as a visionary. His rationalist doctrine shaped the course of modern philosophy and became part of the cultural bedrock.
But it seems history may have sided with the wrong man. For more than a decade, neuroscientists armed with brain scans have been chipping away at the Cartesian façade. Gone is Descartes' lofty Cogito, reasoning in pristine detachment from the physical world. Fading fast are its sophisticated modern incarnations, including the once-popular "computational model," according to which the mind is like a software program and the brain like a hard drive.
Lately, scientists have begun to approach consciousness in more Spinozist terms: as a complex and indivisible mind-brain-body system...I Feel, Therefore I Am
04-05-06, 05:02 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
That's about the future, isn't it? The hocus-pocus about immortality and imperishability is going to happen to 'the dead' (and maybe, if you want to take it that way, to any living who are around at the last trumpet). Taking the conventional 'thanks be to God' at the end of the passage to mean that it all refers to the present is a bit of a stretch. I don't see anything in the passage that suggests people can put on immortality before they die physically, whatever that means (how would you know you were immortal until you didn't die... Confused).
(Have you checked to see if the 'put on/pretend' pun works in Greek? Maybe it does - in which case you wouldn't have to tie yourself in knots trying to justify your linguistic laziness.)
All this does suggest, however, that Christian scripture is not too clear for us on the soul - let alone the difference between mind and brain. Possibly the writers of the scriptures didn't see these things the way we do.
I have to laugh. Having cited your scripture of choice, let me ask you the question. How can the dead be raised imperishable? Well, did they die or not? This and surrounding scriptures refer to spiritual death in which one living can know God so well that one living also knows that he/she will never die physically. Another name for this spiritual death is the first resurrection. I guess that you are headed for the second resurrection, after you are pronounced dead physically. It will be an awful shame when you first hear the voice of God in that state. I hope that he then sends an angel to deal with you who informs you that she is tormenting you with tsaeb's voice, given how fresh you are to tsaeb. Razz
P.S. It is written that there is no death to the child of God. Well, we all are children of God. Big Grin
04-05-06, 09:26 AM newnickname
quote: I have to laugh. Having cited your scripture of choice, let me ask you the question. How can the dead be raised imperishable? Well, did they die or not? This and surrounding scriptures refer to spiritual death...
1 Corinthians 15 "3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve...
...12Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead."
Seems pretty clear to me.
You're asking us to believe that the writer of this included a pun that would work in language not at that time in existence, which tells you now that it's not about physical but spiritual death. That would be a miracle, I guess.
And the point of this miracle? It tells you that it's possible to know God, to have 'oneness' with him and to be assured of immortality before death.
That's the other quibble with your approach, Tsaeb. The 'messages' that you actually come up with are either incomprehensible or underwhelming. The ideas of being close to God and anticipating eternal life are adequately covered elsewhere in the New Testament. There would be no point in reiterating them in miraculous little secret codes for English speakers. Pointless miracles - who would have listened to Jesus if he had turned red wine into white wine?
Getting back to the topic, this bit of Corinthians doesn't seem to mention 'soul' at all. It seems to suggest that you'll have eternal life in a magically 'changed' version of your mortal body, after the sleep of death. Spinoza saw the mind and the brain as indivisible; is that maybe how the writer of 1 Corinthians saw the soul and the body?
04-05-06, 10:06 AM babthrower Tsaeb the prophet has not yet given up hope of converting NNN:
quote: I hope that he then sends an angel to deal with you who informs you that she is tormenting you with tsaeb's voice, given how fresh you are to tsaeb. Razz
See, the trouble is, tsaeb, those of us who were almost convinced of your prophetic powers, based on your ability to divine the meaning of texts, now really doubt your powers. Because you're scared to stick your neck out on this one.
Just because it's not in English? But the spirit knows what it means, it's in a language known to the spirit. What's up? Spirit ticked off with you?
04-05-06, 10:40 AM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: As for Descartes' view of the mind as a reasoning machine, Spinoza thought that was dead wrong. Reason, he insisted, is shot through with emotion. More radical still, he claimed that thoughts and feelings are not primarily reactions to external events but first and foremost about the body. In fact, he suggested, the mind exists purely for the body's sake, to ensure its survival.
Like Spinoza, Buddhists believe that reason and feelings are completely intertwined, but their model of the mind is slightly different. They believe that the mind is feeling (separating things into pleasant, unpleasant and neutral); recognition or the ability to categorize things; the six senses (the western five of sight, sound, taste, touch and smell, plus mental consciousness - as we perceive sights that are around us, we also perceive thoughts and desires that our brain bombards us with); and the thoughts and desires themselves.
I think Buddhists consider these things the courser aspects of consciousness, or the part that we continously experience if we don't dig deeper into our own mind. I think Buddhists would agree that these serve to preserve the body. They would go even further to say that these preserve our attachment to the cycle of death and rebirth - as long as we remain caught up and controlled by this mind, we will continue to be reborn.
The more subtle levels of consciousness (which are experienced in meditation and at death) are not concerned with these things. The most subtle level of consciousness does not separate things into pleasant, unpleasant and neutral - it simply experiences without judgment; it does not categorize things because it recognizes that nothing inherently exists, or if it does it is without being attached to those categories, recognizing them as in constant flux; it experiences the six senses purely and without judgement or attachment; and it is completely detatched from the thoughts and desires floating around in our brains.
At least, this is how I understand it. I may be wrong.
04-06-06, 05:06 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: You're asking us to believe that the writer of this included a pun that would work in language not at that time in existence, which tells you now that it's not about physical but spiritual death. That would be a miracle, I guess.
the other quibble with your approach, Tsaeb. The 'messages' that you actually come up with are either incomprehensible or underwhelming. ?
I think that we beat on the first point elsewhere. So I'll address the second point here. Of course, as babthrower calls them "snippets," the few messages are likely incomprehensible, because they are out of context and without any convincing designs, mathematics, and the like. As for underwhelming, of course, it is not God's will that I divulge anything in this forum of very great importance. Indeed, I participate here in part for my entertainment and yours and in part so that we can all gain clarification about what are the issues which are open for our tackling. Realize that when we go to tackle them, each of us has a different approach, which provides the greatest entertainment and, more importantly, the greatest challenge. So let us enjoy challenging one another so that we learn something, even if we are sometimes temporarily dissatisfied in what we have learned/not learned. At least, we will know that we began to tackle the issues and what are the difficulties associated with settling those issues' challenges.
04-06-06, 05:21 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Tsaeb the prophet has not yet given up hope of converting NNN:
quote: I hope that he then sends an angel to deal with you who informs you that she is tormenting you with tsaeb's voice, given how fresh you are to tsaeb. Razz
See, the trouble is, tsaeb, those of us who were almost convinced of your prophetic powers, based on your ability to divine the meaning of texts, now really doubt your powers. Because you're scared to stick your neck out on
this one.
Just because it's not in English? But the spirit knows what it means, it's in a language known to the spirit. What's up? Spirit ticked off with you?
I may have mislead you into thinking that I always divine the meaning of texts. It is true that it is possible for a prophet/prophetess (or anyone else, for that matter) to divine the meaning of texts. All these will arrive at an unregenerate interpretation most of the time but not all of the time; there will be some regenerate interpretations, because all these respect the truths of science and even some of the truths which a prophet/prophetess can supply. Yet, without the leading of the Holy Spirit, it is almost impossible for anyone to come up with any regenerate meaning of texts, which is not specifically scientific.
Now, to be led by the Spirit is not the same thing as you are requesting--that I lead the Spirit. As a matter of fact, neither the Spirit nor I have any interest in playing your little game. You are ticking off the Spirit and me--and a few others here. For one, philalethist, also "challenged" by you, called you an "evil woman." You expect this, given that you taunt that some here are almost convinced of my prophetic powers. Be aware that if I have such powers, they come from God at His will. It is easier for anyone of us--and that includes me--to kill a fly. Even then, will it stay still long enough? That, too, is up to God.
Since God makes a way of escape, and since you wrote about contributing to Answerpool, I suggest that you contribute between $0 and $20, which would be $10, and not be so quick to wager against God's will in the future.
04-06-06, 09:26 AM newnickname
quote: As for underwhelming, of course, it is not God's will that I divulge anything in this forum of very great importance.
It's God's will, of course, that we buy the book/DVD/collectors-edition-fridge-magnet to get the real goods? Roll Eyes If you're not going to say anything important, maybe it would be politer to stop cluttering up this thread. (Although what would be entertaining would be your admitting that you might have gotten got it wrong about immortality in 1 Corinthians. Smile)
Sarai, I like what this guy has to say about Buddhism - an explicitly 'Western' version of it:
'Many Buddhists believe that Siddhartha Gautama denied the existence of the human soul. Others claim that he only meant to dispel the belief that soul is a magical entity existing beyond any dependence on natural cosmic forces. Another explanation is that Buddha was playing with words in order to keep his disciples from becoming attached and selfish. A denial of soul may be of less value in the industrialized, computerized 21st Century than it was in ancient India. The background and lifestyle of humans living today differs greatly from Siddhartha Gautama's original Hindu disciples...
...It is my belief that Buddha knew that souls exist, just as trees in the forest exist, but he also knew that the cosmic void is our most fundamental being, not our physical body ,and not our soul body (subtle body). If Buddha denied soul, he was fighting attachment, but he was not telling an exact truth. Many enlightened men have played with words in order to push their disciples in one direction or another. George Gurdjieff said soul was something you had to earn through the meditation of self-observation. Ramana Maharshi said flatly that all human beings have souls. So which Buddha (Enlightened One) should we believe? Many Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, substitute the word 'mind' for the word soul, and claim that "the most subtle part of the mind survives death". They suggest that the mind is transferred from one birth to the next through reincarnation. 'Mind' is a word normally associated with the functions of the brain and thinking, but the brain and the thought process do not survive physical death. Others call soul a "bundle of desires", but that is not accurate either, because the soul also contains positive human traits, not just desires and clingings...
...Our souls contains the music, poetry, and personality of the individual, and it is through this unique personal character that Tibetan lamas recognize the reincarnations of monks from one lifetime to the next...'
04-06-06, 10:00 AM babthrower It's interesting to contrast 1 Corinthians 15:51 including "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..." etc., which is a magical transformation,
with NNN's reference to George Gurdjieff, who said soul was something you had to earn through the meditation of self-observation. The latter gives us a dynamic image: soul is becoming. . It is the product of effort, and it is accountable.
04-06-06, 10:10 AM babthrower Tsaeb, I answer your points in the proper thread,
04-07-06, 01:24 AM jusork It's all good, Babs. As long as my thread's getting some good use out of it.
04-07-06, 04:56 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: If you're not going to say anything important, maybe it would be politer to stop cluttering up this thread.
Practice what you preach.
04-07-06, 09:21 AM newnickname Lo, and the mighty prophetess spake unto them, chanting, "I'm rubber, you're glue..."
Hey, I might stumble into saying something important just by chance in any post. However, God won't even allow you that possibility, you say. Neither does he allow you to show off your superpowers, I guess, judging from that other thread. Apparently, God has a subtle plan - he leaves you only the option of empty and trivial assertions to proclaim his majesty.
Getting back on track...
'While the origin of the English word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a word which meant 'breath' or 'wind' or 'air', or something like that. The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root!
Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'. For example, the Hebrew word neshamah (literally meaning 'breath') is twice rendered as 'spirit', once as 'soul'. The Hebrew-Aramaic word ruach (lit., 'wind') is rendered 240 times as 'spirit', six times as 'mind.' The word nephesh (lit., 'breath') is rendered 'soul' 428 times) 'mind' 15 times, 'ghost' twice, and 'life' 119 times. Turning to the Greek Bible, we find pneuma (lit., 'breath') rendered as 'ghost' 91 times (including the rendering 'Holy Ghost'), 292 times as 'spirit'. The reader will recognize the same root in the word pneumonia, a word referring to a disease of the organs of breath. And finally, in this somewhat pedantic parade of words, we may note the important word psyche. As expected, its literal meaning is 'breath.' As we might have guessed, it is rendered as 'soul' 58 times, 'mind' three times, and life' 40 times.
The fact that nearly all words now meaning 'soul', 'spirit', 'life', etc., trace their origins to words meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me to conclude that the derived meanings were an outgrowth of the inability of primitive people to solve a basic biological puzzle, namely, what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?
To the ancient authors of the Bible — men who still thought they were living on a flat earth beneath a solid sky (firmament) — the solution seemed deceptively simple: living things breathe, dead things do not...'www.atheists.org
04-07-06, 10:44 AM babthrower ... and your 'last breath' is when the soul leaves the body, never to return. So heaven would be a windy place.
04-07-06, 11:29 AM juanruiz
quote: Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'.
This is indicative of the power a translator has to shape the meaning of the text.
04-08-06, 05:20 AM tsaeb newnickname: You should know darn well that when I said something to the effect that I do not say anything of very great importance here that I meant that I would most likely have other places in which more folks would be helped or reached to do such broadcasting. I wouldn't get my hopes down though for I might be moved to broadcast something here some day.
04-08-06, 04:26 PM newnickname How could I have known you meant all that? You only said, "...of course, it is not God's will that I divulge anything in this forum of very great importance"
Interesting that you want your own words to be taken exactly as you meant them - even if what was on your mind when you wrote them, and what ended up on screen, don't entirely coincide.
On the other hand, we have some poor soul taking obvious pains, for example, to make it clear that he's writing (in Biblical Greek) about actual, physical resurrection of the dead. In that case you seem to feel it's OK, on the basis of one English pun which may or may not work in that ancient language, to make his writing mean the opposite - "spiritual death".
If the writer of that passage of 1 Corinthians could come back and talk to you, don't you think he'd be a bit ticked off?
Is that also partly where the idea of 'soul' originated? We still tend to fear, love or worry about people after they have died - so we feel that there must be a soul somewhere? Or missing someone, we see their characteristics (not just the physical ones) in their descendants, and think up reincarnation?
04-08-06, 05:42 PM babthrower
quote: Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'.
quote: This is indicative of the power a translator has to shape the meaning of the text.
This is a perfect illustration of what happens as primitive languages such as koine Greek and ancient Hebrew are translated into rich languages such as English with a vocabulary of half a million words.
The translators are bound to put a lot of personal 'spin' on the originals.
Click this for a good site which gives examples of how long this kind of 'interpretation' has been going on.
Each of the thousands of sects in existence is an example of the kind of 'creative licence' some of our own posters like to use, except that the sects have succeeded in attracting followers.
But the method is the same.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
It's impossible to translate without using some creative license, in my opinion. I dislike translating things because I think it is difficult to get the spirit of the words across while also staying true to the words themselves.
Translating a simple conversation is hard enough. Translating anything profound - a song, a poem, a religious text? Fuhgeddaboudit! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 04-09-06, 07:19 AM tsaeb
quote:
Originally posted by newnickname: How could I have known you meant all that? You only said, "...of course, it is not God's will that I divulge anything in this forum of very great importance"
Interesting that you want your own words to be taken exactly as you meant them - even if what was on your mind when you wrote them, and what ended up on screen, don't entirely coincide.
The phrase "of very great importance" means that "time is of the essence." As for my posting something of less urgent importance, I am happy to inform you that I did feel strongly moved by the Spirit to post in the "Judge?" thread about the purpose of prayer, which you might want to study to see that when the Spirit moves, the writing is certainly not pretentious (as you called the posts of philalethist and me) but most inspiring.
On the other hand, we have some poor soul taking obvious pains, for example, to make it clear that he's writing (in Biblical Greek) about actual, physical resurrection of the dead. In that case you seem to feel it's OK, on the basis of one English pun which may or may not work in that ancient language, to make his writing mean the opposite - "spiritual death".
If the writer of that passage of 1 Corinthians could come back and talk to you, don't you think he'd be a bit ticked off?
There are quite a few things which were not for general understanding either pre-crucifixion or years later. So the writer of the scriptures under discussion would be happy that the time has arrived to begin to poke them to reveal their truth. You must have caught that I was poking fun at their long-hiding meaning, judging by your own poking fun. I also think that you prefer to be enlightened than to fly away with who/what may or may not be Jesus in some imagined rapture. Yeah, I am saying that no one need fear being left behind, unless the extent of his/her spiritual sight is a behind (Greek letter omega?).
Is that also partly where the idea of 'soul' originated? We still tend to fear, love or worry about people after they have died - so we feel that there must be a soul somewhere? Or missing someone, we see their characteristics (not just the physical ones) in their descendants, and think up reincarnation?
God loves all folks and will continue to curry their love towards Himself after their bodies are declared dead. Anyone who can believe that God loves him/her is blessed by his/her trust of this God even if this God for him/her is wishy-washy, maybe/maybe not, seemingly evasive. You see, God is clever: the more that one may try to not think about Him, the more He is putting that one in His Spirit in the first instance in which that one had to think about Him to try to cast Him out.
preferred some color for a change of pace
04-09-06, 12:48 PM newnickname
quote:
The phrase "of very great importance" means that "time is of the essence."
No it doesn't.
quote:
There are quite a few things which were not for general understanding either pre-crucifixion or years later. So the writer of the scriptures under discussion would be happy that the time has arrived to begin to poke them...
Again, you're being self-centred. For centuries, ersatz prophets have proclaimed that now, their own lifetime, is The End. Why is it that so many seem to believe that they are the special ones having been born at just the right time and place (with just the right language) to get the 'truth'? You can't all have been so. That's more like a two-year-old's perspective than anything else.
quote:
God loves all folks and will continue to curry their love towards Himself after their bodies are declared dead.
So why did you have to laugh and ask 'How can the dead be raised imperishable? Well, did they die or not?'? I guess this was just poking fun, or a test, or something, too.
I'm reminded of Captain Mainwaring in Dad's Army. On saying or doing something wrong, he invariably tried to recover his dignity with, "Ah, yes - well done. You spotted my deliberate mistake..."
Getting back to the original post:
We haven't mentioned animism, yet. Of course, there are many different forms of animism, but I wonder if, in some, objects are seen as having souls but not minds. A mountain or a tree may be seen as having some kind of inner spirit, for example, but it's difficult to imagine a 'mind' for it.
04-09-06, 12:50 PM babthrower
quote: The phrase "of very great importance" means that "time is of the essence."
Really. Roll Eyes
"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!".
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --- that's all."
04-09-06, 01:27 PM Sarai I think you guys should lay off of Tsaeb. Some day I might find myself one sandwich short of a picnic, and I hope you'll all be much gentler with me when that happens!
04-09-06, 01:41 PM newnickname Fair point, Sarai. "There, but for the grace of God..."
04-09-06, 01:52 PM babthrower Naah, I think she enjoys the attention. She seems to take it as proof that she's a prophet.
The syllogism goes like this:
All true prophets are reviled and persecuted. I'm reviled and persecuted. Therefore I'm a true prophet.
(It's similar to the reasoning that goes:
All grass is green. My Toyota is green. Therefore my Toyota is grass.
But never mind.)
04-09-06, 02:08 PM Sarai I'm not so sure. I think the reasoning goes:
I hear God talking to me. Therefore, I'm a prophet.
All the rest is just confirmation - but as long as God is talking, I don't think it much matters to a person who hears such a voice what other people think about it, or what logic or science have to say about it.
I think arguing with a person who hears the voice of God about the veracity of the voice (or anything the voice is saying) is futile. I have no doubt that the voice is very real to her and I'm in no position to tell Tsaeb what the voice means or what should be done about it, unless the voice is telling her to do something harmful to herself or others, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Although I suspect Tsaeb won't like my having publicly stated that I suspect she's a bit nutty, I hope you know Tsaeb that it is said with cariño.
When I hear voices, I hope you'll all just smile and nod! Smile
04-09-06, 02:30 PM newnickname
quote: I think arguing with a person who hears the voice of God about the veracity of the voice (or anything the voice is saying) is futile...
That's a standard approach to someone who is experiencing auditory hallucinations. It goes something like, "I know they are real to you, but I don't hear them..." Neither contradicting nor humouring (by pretending to go along with it) someone who hears voices tends to work so well.
I don't think Tsaeb actually claims to hear voices, however. To me she seems just like another poster, with ideas that are good, bad or indifferent, sometimes original and sometimes not, and more or less muddled or logical in different posts. The only real distinctions are claiming supernatural authority for those ideas, refusing ever to admit a mistake in or a change of mind about them, and occasionally talking about herself in the third person.
That's not craziness; it's pretty run-of-the-mill behaviour that falls under the heading of having 'got religion', isn't it?
Is it a problem of the mind or the soul?
04-09-06, 02:30 PM babthrower I follow your reasoning, but doesn't it also follow from that line of reasoning that she's impregnable? If god's on her side, who can prevail against her, sort of thing? So I don't think it hurts her.
I mean, I suppose I could just ignore her, but if we all did that, would that make her happy?
When one has the preaching 'bug', and when it is so easy to take anything as logically flawed as the testaments, and make anything one wants out of them, naturally anyone who wants attention can just make up what they like, as did Humpty Dumpty.
And when one injects one's interpretations into a religious discussion site, what does one expect?
Or am I just rationalizing because it's fun to take apart crappy reasoning, and I don't want to stop?
Hmmm. Heavy ethical dilemma here. Must take time out for a think.
Actually I do ignore a lot of what she says. But she's like a lot of preachers, she gets under your skin by saying something completely irrational, and then being smug about it. I agree she's harmless, also is Phil, no one would follow them.
Thanks, Sarai, for the question.
04-09-06, 02:35 PM newnickname
quote: Or am I just rationalizing because it's fun to take apart crappy reasoning...
Also a very good point - although it tends to be more fun (and instructive) when your own reasoning is challenged in turn. Maybe that feeds both your mind and your soul.
04-09-06, 02:36 PM Sarai Tsaeb has said that God speaks to her. I could go back and find evidence but I'm sure she'll chime in sooner or later to clarify.
As for where the problem lies, I don't think it has to do with mind or soul, if it is a problem. If mind and soul (in the religious sense of the words) exist, I don't think illness or confusion could possibly from them. The problem probably has to do with the brain and how those neurons are firing.
04-09-06, 02:39 PM babthrower
quote: Maybe that feeds both your mind and your soul.
Humph. That's begging the question. I say there's only a brain, and its manifestation, consciousness or 'mind'.
Wow, back on topic! Smile
04-09-06, 02:40 PM Sarai Babs, I just saw your post. It is an interesting dilemma - at what point is it unkind to argue with a person's reasoning?
I guess it comes down to motivation. If the goal is to help the other person, to learn from them, or to clarify my own beliefs through debate, then I think it is good to question others. If the purpose is to poke fun or make another person appear foolish, then maybe it's better to stay quiet.
I don't know, though. It's just my gut feeling. I've been enjoying the banter between Tsaeb and others recently but at some point I started feeling a little sorry for Tsaeb.
Sorry for taking this thread so far off topic.
04-09-06, 02:53 PM babthrower "I guess it comes down to motivation."
That's the crux, I see that. Speaking for myself, I have to admit it became fun after awhile, the 'challenge' thread, I mean. It's a slippery slope.
You post a challenge: Okay, if you have special gifts, here's a test.
Then your target, startled and defensive, attacks your character and motivation.
What to do, ignore it, answer it seriously, or point out that its a diversion?
If you ignore it, it may suggest to some that you have no defense. If you take it seriously, it's boring. So you point out it's a diversion.
The subject attacks again, picking different ammo, but just as irrelevant, and just as patently a diversion.
Now comes the temptation. Why not make fun of that which is patently absurd to start with?
So far so good, I suppose.
But then -- the urge to have more fun with it takes over. At this point I agree it can become cruel mockery.
Please don't apologize. Even if it's off topic, it's a very good and worthwhile point.
I will not promise to go, and sin no more, but I will try to be a little more compassionate.
04-09-06, 03:14 PM juanruiz
quote: at what point is it unkind to argue with a person's reasoning?
I think that is is not untoward to expect of a person posting to support whatever ideas are brought forward. How those people react to that expectation is up to them. In the past, mahal and his varied incarnations simply changed the rules of debate, flipped out ad hominems, and avoided questions because they were "stupid," and other peoples' proof was not valid. Others adopt other strategies.
04-10-06, 06:53 AM tsaeb newnickname: A lot of the time I am coming across as elusive, because I am trying to say something complicated in a few words, or I am trying to avoid going into detail. You should ask for clarification when you are perturbed. I have been intending to add that you have been showing much more patience with my posts.
All: Imagine the following scenario. 1) Person A tells Person B that Person A hears voices which Person B thinks are auditory hallucinations. 2) Person B tells Person C about Person A. 3) If Person C were not told by Person A, then Person C would think that Person B is stupid for believing Person A. 4) So what if Person A tells both Person B and Person C that Person A hears voices which both Person B and Person C think are auditory hallucinations. As soon as Person B and Person C begin to discuss Person A, both Person B and Person C are still stupid. 5) Let the full truth be told: whether or not I am nutty even crazy (which if this were so, I would not be making as much sense as I do), I am not as confused about right and wrong, that is, good and evil, respectively, as are many here. Razz
babthrower: My objection is to your vilification of God, believers of whom I am one, and my publishing company. You just don't get it: you are coming across, just as philalethist posted, as an evil woman. By my values, I would rather be called nutty even crazy than evil any day of the week.
Moderator: I think that there should be a rule here about not vilifying one's object of belief, whether God, goddess, and whonot/whatnot. I hope that from now on, I remember to think less of the reputation of myself and others and more of that of God.
04-10-06, 07:19 AM juanruiz
quote: Moderator: I think that there should be a rule here about not vilifying one's object of belief, whether God, goddess, and whonot/whatnot.
One has to tread lightly here. For some, any criticism of their belief is considered vilification.
04-10-06, 07:29 AM tsaeb juanruiz: I tend to agree that it is not for the rules, but it is, nevertheless, for agreed upon courtesy. Cough. You have to admit that I haven't coughed in a long while.
04-10-06, 07:52 AM juanruiz
quote: agreed upon courtesy.
I don't disagree that toes haven't stepped on here from time to time...I believe vedere and sorka left because of that. Yet we still seem to operate ok the majority of the time, given the topics involved.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2244 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Tsaeb, if Person B thinks Person A's voices are auditory hallucinations, why would Person C "think that Person B is stupid for believing Person A"? We know that auditory hallucinations exist, and that people do experience them. What is stupid about thinking that someone's "voices" are auditory hallucinations?
What examples of confusion about "right and wrong, that is, good and evil" do you have on the part of many here - and what's your unconfused view on those examples? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 04-10-06, 11:41 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by tsaeb: babthrower: My objection is to your vilification of God, believers of whom I am one, and my publishing company. You just don't get it: you are coming across, just as philalethist posted, as an evil woman. By my values, I would rather be called nutty even crazy than evil any day of the week.
Tsaeb, for one who pretends, as you do, to be a gifted interpreter, you display an absolutely astonishing inability to comprehend the simplest statement in English.
I must shout now, in case it's your hearing that's at fault.
When I have called your self-proclaimed gift into question, asking you to provide a simple demonstration, and when you fail to do it, it is not any god I am exposing -- unless you also think YOU are god.
I have said this over and over. So the next time you accuse me of attacking your god, (which I would hardly do, since I don't believe he exists)
when the one whom I am attacking is YOU, TSAEB,
You. The woman Tsaeb. Not the god or godess. You, the prophetess. Tsaeb. Got it?
I will simply reply, as I used to with Enzo whose strategy was also to post the same accusations over and over, by posting only the URL of this response, with the tag "tsaeb is having a senior moment again".
And as for Phil, he had not the 'sand' to pursue the challenge after the first try, so he resorted to namecalling. So what? Phil has said thousands of things that nobody believes.
So keep up your silliness, go ahead. If you were a woman of character, you would simply acknowledge your failed gift. But you're not.
From now on, you'll just get a one-line response from me. You are simply regurgitating the same accusations you tried in the 'challenge' thread. And Karrow shut that one down.
(So much for compassion, I guess. Confused )
04-10-06, 11:58 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: And as for Phil, he had not the 'sand' to pursue the challenge after the first try, so he resorted to namecalling. So what? Phil has said thousands of things that nobody believes.
Its pretty hard to be believe that just a little over month ago you abused me (perhaps deservingly) for Phil and now things have come to this Roll Eyes.
04-11-06, 01:08 AM newnickname 'But the soul, of course, does not exist - medicine has revealed that much. The mind is a product of evolution, with all that this implies.'www.suite101.com
The reductionist view. The difference is that the soul simply doesn't exist. 'The mind' is a handy term for instincts and cognitive processes shaped by evolution. I wouldn't go so far, maybe. There seems to be something mysterious (at least, yet to be fully explained) about consciousness. Or does the significance we attach to self-awareness arise from a fallacy of our own haphazardly created minds?
04-11-06, 01:26 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
There seems to be something mysterious (at least, yet to be fully explained) about consciousness. Or does the significance we attach to self-awareness arise from a fallacy of our own haphazardly created minds?
Something yet to be fully explained about consciousness? There's something yet to be fully explained about everything!
But why should we postulate an eternal, non-material something in order to explain the mystery of consciousness?
I remember back in the last decades of the 20th C. artificial intelligence was all the rage. In no time, we imagined, we could sort out how consciousness works. Didn't happen. That's because although we knew how computers work, we didn't know how the brain works. So to try and emulate the latter on the former was a pretty dumb plan.
But if we look at the gradations of consciousness, from spider-intelligence to human intelligence, we must either assume, with Aristotle, that there are vegetative souls, animal souls, and human souls - animism - or that there are just different degrees of brainpower. I'm a great appreciator of animal intelligence.
I even saw a very smart spider today when I was cleaning the underside of my media cabinet. Yet her brain would fit on the point of a pin. So how much more can a human brain do?
And yet how dumb we really are!
I can't help but think that if there were a soul we wouldn't be so stupid! Yet another reason to cause me to believe there is only brain. Or brain/mind, if you prefer.
04-11-06, 06:35 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Tsaeb, if Person B thinks Person A's voices are auditory hallucinations, why would Person C "think that Person B is stupid for believing Person A"? We know that auditory hallucinations exist, and that people do experience them. What is stupid about thinking that someone's "voices" are auditory hallucinations?
What examples of confusion about "right and wrong, that is, good and evil" do you have on the part of many here - and what's your unconfused view on those examples?
If Person B told me as Person C that Person A was having auditory hallucinations--and I as Person C believed that having auditory hallucinations is possible--I would consider Person B stupid for 1) listening at all to Person A and 2) telling the tale (and Person B's stupidity) to me as Person C. No, I am not going to explain this further.
You wrote, "We know that auditory hallucinations exist, and that people do experience them." I know no such thing. What proof do you have other than the word of doctors that to hear a voice which others have not heard is impossible? Isn't it possible for beings with knowledge greater than ours to not only communicate in a different frequency or whatever but to then also be able to do this to one individual and not to another? If God does exist, then what in the world would stop Him from doing this very thing, despite all the know-it-alls with possibly lying tongues in the world? See my thread on Jesus' mental health.
As for your second question, post your name, address, business, job, website, and the like here so that most of us can tell the world things as those written about me here--that I am crazy, have a tacky website on which I beg for money since my sales are 0 books per day but could be 60 books per day if I would only do what is demanded of me so that I am not also called a fraud and a fake. Well, supply your personal details so that we can go right ahead and destroy your life for you. Someone will get you fired for starters, if you have a job. Would you like that? Maybe that's why you post here day after day after day. Why do you post here? If it is not for this, then why do you allow it to be done against the least of these participants? It must be because you have a website of your own in which you do the same thing, isn't that so? Should I name it here for my kicks? How would you feel about that as long as I kept at you and your website day after day after day? What brings you some joy so that I can poison you and it and others here over it day after day after day? I am not the sick one here. That's a fact.
04-11-06, 07:32 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: the one whom I am attacking is YOU, TSAEB,
You. The woman Tsaeb. Not the god or godess. You, the prophetess. Tsaeb. Got it?
YES, WE ALL FINALLY GOT IT! To slip this badly, you must be having the senior moment, which I cannot have, because I am not old enough, but you are.
This is flaming and against the site rules. You are to limit yourself to attacking my words. Period.
100% A+ 100% A+ 100% A+ 100% A+
Big Grin He,he Big Grin Ha,ha Big Grin Heee,heee Big Grin Haaa,haaa
04-11-06, 09:34 AM newnickname
quote: If Person B told me as Person C that Person A was having auditory hallucinations--and I as Person C believed that having auditory hallucinations is possible--I would consider Person B stupid for 1) listening at all to Person A and 2) telling the tale (and Person B's stupidity) to me as Person C. No, I am not going to explain this further.
It's not clear why you set out all that 'Person A, Person B' rigmarole. It seems that all you wanted to say was that the concept of auditory hallucinations is stupid.
I don't have any proof of there being auditory hallucinations. It's impossible to get inside the mind (whatever that is Smile) of someone else. Possibly, those people I worked with in my previous career, who gave every sign of hearing voices that no one else could, were just putting it on for a laugh Roll Eyes. Typically, the messages in those voices are bizarre - they are not like messages from a god. "...voices that a schizophrenic hears, usually come from outside the head and are bizarre (for example, hearing voices from outerspace who are instructing him to kill himself because aliens are invading his testicles). This is a psychotic symptom..." answerpool.com
quote: As for your second question...
I don't think you addressed the question.
Anyway, to pick up your points...
I don't have a website, and I don't think you're crazy, but I do think that your own website could be better designed (don't highlight everything, for example - it means that nothing stands out).
I don't think people have 'kept after you and your website day after day'. You've been a member here long enough to know that peoples' ideas are tested and challenged on this website. That's all that's happening.
I'm not sure how supplying all my personal details here would lead to me getting fired. They're kinda boring for that. It might lead to identity theft, however, so maybe I won't.
You're not 'the least of these participants' - everyone's on an equal footing here, as far as I can see.
I guess this thread will now be shut down, too. Frown
AnswerPool.com 
No offense, clare, but you picked a real howler of a website -- he just makes it up as he goes. 
Lo, and the mighty prophetess spake unto them, chanting, "I'm rubber, you're glue..."