15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI think it would be best for you to state your point, rather than try to bait traps by asking irrelevant questions based on carefully chosen hypothetical scenarios, begging speculative answers.
So you're ready to discuss your notion of the soul, then? Excellent! I figured that you had just decided to permanently duck my questions. But here you are!
Here is the first question: If you and I were to switch souls (suppose God plays a game of musical souls with us), mine into your body and yours into mine. Would either of us notice the difference? ...[text shortened]... , then by virtue of what introspectively accessible features of our psychology would we notice?
As for the latest of your many false accusations, I haven't been ducking your questions. There's a lot going on in these threads and I didn't spot where you asked me any.
Now then... sense you proclaim to know more about morality then Christ Himself, I'm sure you can at least see some value in forgiving me for not spotting your question amidst the flurry of activity here.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidRemember? I was talking about the rape and stabbing of a woman here in Seattle, using it as an example of the sort of horror you'd expect a powerful and benevolent God to prevent. You responded, essentially, that such suffering isn't really anything to worry about, since it "leaves the soul untouched". I pointed out that we'd have to get clear on just what this soul thing is, because if the soul has to do with our psychology, and our psychology can be damaged by such horrors, then your response fails. Here is the exchange:
I think it would be best for you to state your point, rather than try to bait traps by asking irrelevant questions based on carefully chosen hypothetical scenarios, begging speculative answers.
As for the latest of your many false accusations, I haven't been ducking your questions. There's a lot going on in these threads and I didn't spot where you asked ome value in forgiving me for not spotting your question amidst the flurry of activity here.
You said this:
bbarr I know you're getting a good laugh out of this "left the soul untouched" business. But the bible touches on the subject. Not many people approach the common snare of "what about the tortured, raped women God didn't save," the way I do, but, my argument is supported by Scripture.
Anything that happens to the physical body here in this fleeting existence we have on Earth, has absolutely no bearing on, and can do no damage to, the soul. Because of this, from the Christian perspective and looking at the grand scheme of things... what happens to our bodies here on Earth is of so little significance it rises no higher than the level of irrelevant.
You also (though I am certain it would pain you to do so) should understand that again from the Christian perspective and the perspective of other belief systems, death is not a bad thing and represents a beginning. The only "end" that is experienced in the Christian's death, is the end of all suffering.
Sure, you and your colleagues can have a real blast with that concept and I've seen it countless times before. I've had more than one skeptic tell me they would gladly hand me a gun and I should just blow my own head off if I'm so confident in death being a good thing. It's cute (though disturbing) argument but suicide is frowned upon. Paul as you well know I'm sure, seriously contemplated offing himself while in prison--knowing it would be a good thing in the end--but he realized that as long as he was still breathing, God obviously had a purpose for him to serve. Ultimately it's God decision when we die.
I said this:
Right, so the actual suffering of others is irrelevant to you, because it leaves their souls untouched. As though that weren't horrible enough, and sufficient as evidence that our moral predicates (e.g. 'loving', 'just', etc.) really are used radically differently. But what I find fascinating is that you overlook the lasting psychological damage this violence can cause (including loss of faith, coldness and callousness towards others, hatred, aggression, etc., not to mention the potential damage to our mental life that could be caused by direct harm to our brains). And here you'll face a dilemma: Either these forms of psychological damage are also forms of damage to the soul, or they are not. If they are, then all my arguments apply and you are wrong to say the soul remains untouched by violence. If they are not, then you'll have to admit that many, if not all, our psychological traits are not part of the soul. The soul will be, on this second view, empty of everything we care about with regard to ourselves; it will be just an empty, propertyless formalism. So you should probably think more about this view of yours, whichever it may be.
You replied:
I face no such dilemma. Damage to the brain is not damage to the soul. Psychological effects are contained within the boundaries of our physical existence.
I'm not willing to go as far as to say the soul cannot be effected in any way whatsoever. Just as a really bad dream can have a real, though temporary effect on me, a traumatic experience here in this physical existence I believe can have a real, though diminished and temporary, effect on the soul.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers. In fact, this discussion is so rarely partaken in on both sides, I've had very little chance to work it all out in discussion with someone else.
Perhaps you are helping me in this and that's a good thing.
But I do believe you are being entirely too convenient and dismissive in your own right.
I then asked:
Then let's start this conversation out with the obvious questions:
Are there any psychological traits that are contained in the soul? If so, what are they? If not, then what distinguishes my soul from yours? Or, to put the question a little more sharply; if God played "musical souls" and your soul switched with mine, what, if any, difference would we recognize?
Now, once you answer those questions, ask yourself whether extreme physical violence can profoundly, negatively effect whatever psychological traits you take to constitute (at least in part) the soul.
15 Nov 11
Before we proceed, I don't want to play into any semantics nonsense. Let us be clear that by soul, I am using the context of the invisible force that gives life to the body, also referred to as the psyche. I am not using soul in the context of simply a living creature. Both contexts are used in the bible. Mine is the former.
That out of the way. You are still asking hypotheticals about musical chairs with our souls. You need to state your point so we can debate it. You're going about this by asking me questions so that, presumably, you can pinpoint errors in my answers and explanations. I said before and you quoted it. I'm no expert. However I am aware enough to know that the bible clearly indicates that life here on Earth is but a blip on the radar when compared to our entire existence. And since I'm obviously referring to our existence before and after this lifetime on Earth, I have to refer to our being outside this realm and I used the word "soul." I might have also used the word "spirit."
I'll refer back to what you already quoted as I believe this is very much like our life experience. Lets say you have a horrible nightmare. In that nightmare you are tortured, gang raped, and then placed on a torture rack and torn apart. Did you personally feel any pain during this dream? No. Did you experience something distrubing? Yes. When you awake you will feel disturbed, perhaps for several minutes or even hours afterward. But as the experience fades, so does the trauma.
Likewise it is my contention that when our soul separates from our body immediately following our physical death, the soul will surely recall the moments leading up to the death and perhaps even an infinite number of memories from our lifetime. But the soul will not feel pain, and as time goes by the trauma of our lifetime experiences on Earth will fade.
It only supports my case, that in the myriad near death experiences described by hospital patients... many of whom were concurrently experiencing the physical pain and agony of their condition... when their soul separated from their body, they describe the experience as warm, peaceful, loving, and joyful... and we can presume their soul isn't feeling any pain whatsoever though their body is still in the bed, nerve endings lit up like a Christmas tree, delivering data packets to the brain that scream intense pain and agony.
In your dreams, though you are watching and participating, you don't feel a single shred of physical pain. In our existence here on Earth, I contend that our souls in likewise manner, feel no physical pain, and though our experience may be disturbing, the effects of it fade over time and do not damage the soul permanently.
In our life on Earth, when we experience traumatic experiences, our brain can be damaged and we can become emotionally disturbed. I say the soul, being separate from the brain, is not effected by these types of things. The soul may have a difficult time controlling the physical vehicle that is damaged, but the soul itself isn't damaged.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrWell not sure how you think human standards are some how different than
Kelly, I'm not trying to hold God to human standards. I'm holding God to basic moral standards; standards of decency and compassion and love. I don't see any reason why these standards do not apply to both paupers and princes, humans and Gods. Maybe I just take this morality stuff way more seriously than Christians. It wouldn't surprise me. ...[text shortened]... ure pain, even if you've created that creature? This just seems clear to me.
"basic moral standards" since it is human to come up with these standards.
You think these basic moral standards are not human, that some other source
makes these true, or what? I think that you are really when it is all said and
done judging God by your standards which I would point out is a human
standard is all your really doing.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidMost people would not use the name 'psyche' to refer to an invisible force giving life to the body.
Let us be clear that by soul, I am using the context of the invisible force that gives life to the body, also referred to as the psyche.
You also seem very unclear later in your post as to whether it is the soul or the brain that thinks, experiences pain, dreams etc. At some points you seem to be saying it is the soul, and at others the brain. Are you able to clarify it better?
I also do not understand what you mean by 'physical pain'. If I stick a pin in my finger, my brain does not get a physical pin in it. What it receives are signals telling it that my finger has been stuck with a pin. I fail to see how this is any more harmful to the brain than when I dream that pin has been stuck in my finger, yet you seem to make a definite distinction suggesting one is far worse than the other.
And finally, though someone may have pointed this out already, your stance leads to the conclusion that morality has no real meaning. You must therefore either not believe your own claim, or live your life without morals murdering and raping as and when you see fit as you are wholly convinced that you are doing no real harm to anyone when you do so.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidnot fully accurate. some people can in fact feel physical pain in their dreams, as well as physical exhilaration. i am one of those people. and some experiences, good or bad, never fade away. psychological pain can last much longer than the physical pains.
In your dreams, though you are watching and participating, you don't feel a single shred of physical pain. In our existence here on Earth, I contend that our souls in likewise manner, feel no physical pain, and though our experience may be disturbing, the effects of it fade over time and do not damage the soul permanently.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm in a hurry but to clarify further. The soul is described as the invisible force that gives life to the body and ALSO referred to as the psyche. I didn't mean to suggest that psyche means the invisible force that gives life to the body. The soul in the context I am using is both; the invisible force AND the psyche. I worded it ambiguously. As far as you suggesting that psyche is not an accurate description of the soul; the words "soul" and "psyche" are both used in the bible as translations of the Hebrew word nephesh. So inasmuch as biblical translation is concerned, "soul" and "psyche" are interchangeable words.
Most people would not use the name 'psyche' to refer to an invisible force giving life to the body.
You also seem very unclear later in your post as to whether it is the soul or the brain that thinks, experiences pain, dreams etc. At some points you seem to be saying it is the soul, and at others the brain. Are you able to clarify it better?
I also do ee fit as you are wholly convinced that you are doing no real harm to anyone when you do so.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou are arguing that in dreams, we can feel physical pain and also experience trauma so horrible it damages us emotionally?
not fully accurate. some people can in fact feel physical pain in their dreams, as well as physical exhilaration. i am one of those people. and some experiences, good or bad, never fade away. psychological pain can last much longer than the physical pains.
That's a new one on me but I'll stand by my example as just a general example then. I guess there are always strange exceptions to most any rule.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidI was mostly pointing out that in general usage 'psyche' and 'the invisible force that gives life to the body' would not be interchangeable. If you have your own definitions (or say the Bible does), that is fine with me.
I'm in a hurry but to clarify further. The soul is described as the invisible force that gives life to the body and ALSO referred to as the psyche. I didn't mean to suggest that psyche means the invisible force that gives life to the body. The soul in the context I am using is both; the invisible force AND the psyche. I worded it ambiguously. As far as ...[text shortened]... h as biblical translation is concerned, "soul" and "psyche" are interchangeable words.
Just to clarify a bit more:
1. Does a brain dead human have a soul? (and is it alive?).
2. Does an animal or plant have a soul?
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI know where I fall short and I admit I do, now if you feel like you don't and
I know where I fall short and I admit I do, now if you feel like you don't and
have no need to be forgiven for anything in your life that is saying something
about you too. It isn't a matter of self loathing, it is admittting I've come up
short from what I believe I should have done or not done with my life.
I see a lot of good too, but does not v ...[text shortened]... ill be lost due to the embrace of it and the rejection of the one way
to be forgiven.
Kelly[/b]
have no need to be forgiven for anything in your life that is saying something
about you too. It isn't a matter of self loathing, it is admittting I've come up
short from what I believe I should have done or not done with my life.
I'm sure virtually everyone regrets certain things they have done, which is a part of the maturation process. I understand that, although I see no need to prostrate myself before the cosmos. I do not, however, understand the inference from the fact that we have been in the wrong at certain times in our lives to the idea that God owes us nothing and could do whatever He wants with us and that it is only by divine grace that He does not simply smite us. That just sounds like really sloppy reasoning to me. God "owes" us our rightful moral standing, just like any moral agent has responsibilities toward moral patients. As I have tried to stress before, this is not about suggesting that we are somehow super "special". This is just about very basic norms regarding moral status. Just because your children fall short of being perfect, that does not mean it is merely a matter of "grace" that you continue to provide for their care and do not simply smite them. On the contrary, you have obligations and responsibilities regarding this continued care. I already know that you will object "But we did not create our children!" But, sorry, I still confess to having no idea how that objection is relevant.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, but let us be clear. If Jeffrey Dahmer had created this universe and set in motion all that is; then his raping boys, dismembering their bodies, having sex with whatever is left of the corpses, and so on; this would all have been good and just. Right?
Jeffery Dahmer didn't create this universe and set in motion all that is.
Again, you compare God to a human so you can condemn God.
Kelly
Is this really an implication of your view? That as long as X is the creator of the universe, then raping boys, dismembering their bodies, and having sex with the corpses would be X's right?
Am I missing something here?
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, so let us return to the subject of, for example, God's sanctioning genocide; or His directing the slaying of babies. He does do such things within the biblical accounts, right? So, according to you, He was right and just to do such things not because whatever He does is simply definitive of rightness and justice, but rather because doing those things was right and just on the face of it. Okay, so when God commanded the slaying of babies, what exactly made this right and just on the face of it? Are you saying that there were reasons, independent of God, that made this right and just? If so, what are they?
No
I believe everything God has done and is doing is done both correct and just,
and I believe it is true not just because God did it, but because on its face it is
just and I believe you too will some day admit that as well.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJellothat's essentially the argument i've been hearing.
Okay, but let us be clear. If Jeffrey Dahmer had created this universe and set in motion all that is; then his raping boys, dismembering their bodies, having sex with whatever is left of the corpses, and so on; this would all have been good and just. Right?
Is this really an implication of your view? That as long as X is the creator ...[text shortened]... r bodies, and having sex with the corpses would be X's right?
Am I missing something here?
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidno, i made two separate arguments. one that some people can experience physical pain in dreams, and two that some experiences can cause psychological trauma that haunts them for much longer than any physical pain associated with the experience.
You are arguing that in dreams, we can feel physical pain and also experience trauma so horrible it damages us emotionally?
That's a new one on me but I'll stand by my example as just a general example then. I guess there are always strange exceptions to most any rule.
the thing to remember is that all pain, both physical and psychological is experienced in the brain, the main difference being in where it is stored. psychological pain tends to store in more long term memory while physical pain is stored in temporary memory.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have heard Matt Dilihunty's program.
There is a common claim that morals must be imposed from an external judge and arbiter (typically god/s)
and that it can't be generated internally within society, or that even if it can, god's morality is better.
You (and everyone else here interested in the subject) really really need to watch Matt Dillahunty's
"Superiority of Secular Morality" Le ...[text shortened]... here, but at least we would then be starting the debate from a common
reference point.
Thanks. And I'll trade you one:
Dr. William Lane Craig The Problemof Evil which he regards as the strongest argument for Atheism.
Other comments to what you wrote latter.