Beginner souls and Advanced souls

I am having a hard time discerning what is meant by 'soul'.

I guess I feel it is my calling to question this entire discussion. Asking questions is what I do best.

Is the age of a soul directly related to intellectual maturity? It just always seems that when things like the soul or a metaphysical higher 'level' of being are directly discussed, there is always some connection to some esoteric knowledge of the interdependent fibers of existence.

Can we, being mere players in a game, effectively explain the processes that create the game itself? Is it logical to assume that we can step outside the game itself and objectively observe the inner workings of the game?

Now to question that premise and ask, how can we assume that their is a game at all? Maybe we do not have an innate function, and all of this talk of 'soul' is just a means that we pass time. Maybe the only function of humanity is simply to be... and all perceived functions are artificial means in order to be.

edit: If we have no function, it makes creating an artificial function no less credible as it is a means for us have perceived purpose and exist.

"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him." Voltaire

[edit on 2-1-2010 by DINSTAAR]

reply to post by 13579


Wow. You really know me. You know me well.

You want proof that there's a soul. Ok. Right back at you: I see you believe in God or a god. Prove that one to me.

Like I said before - I'm agnostic. I believe that something is out there, but I don't know what. I can't prove it, but something tells me that everything in this universe came from a source. Like I said - I can't prove it.

So with that said, I will stop feeding the troll, which is yourself. You're going in circles here and I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

But keep on posting and have your last word! It won't bother me!

reply to post by Le Colonel


my cat would problery tell you your silly for a better word.

and if you ever bother to look up my name you may get a brainwave tho unlikely..

The op wanted and got a debate you and others wish to insult me that is fine.. but yet its admited by one poster

you can not prove you have a soul "in biblical refrence or any other way that is because you have a word in english called "faith" that means you do not require evidence you just blindy accept it as true because that is your own opinin



do not mess with the truth it will indeed slap you in your face and im more than happy to unleash the full human aspect of if on your arse... god or no god.

danke

reply to post by 13579

a soul

reply to post by impaired

You want proof that there's a soul. Ok. Right back at you: I see you believe in God or a god. Prove that one to me.

you assume i do.. when i have no need to?

I am here am i not why put my trust in something i know to be true? and that is life?

i do not requre belife or god or any petty aspect of lables to justify my own actions or how i talk

I am me.. and thats the way it was always going to be.. weather YOU or I like it or not.

and if A god or GODS are real why would i care? or is it you tha cares?

reply to post by grantbeed

ancient tribes, believed in this soul, and even believed it was in the rocks, the water, the trees etc, and this was long before religion my friend.

Believed... I belive in santa? does that make it a fact or just an opinion?

keep it coming my fellow human

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Here are my beliefs:

1. We do possess a soul, or some higher essence.

2. It may well be a game - quite a cruel one.

3. We are not meant to be like lilies in the field, just existing, we are meant to find our true purpose here and now.

4. If we do not find our true purpose, we become bored, disillusioned and depresssed.

well the op started with good intent, but someone who shouldnt be here decided to pee in someones else breakfast.

Maybe ill check later and see if conversation has gotten back on track

reply to post by 13579


You miss my point. You did state the word came from religion. I disproved this by saying the idea was round long before religion, nothing more.

Whether the idea was true or not, it was still there.

reply to post by Le Colonel


Yeah. He/she is playing mind-games. I'm gonna fall-back a bit as well until he/she stops with the madness.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Aristotle, following Plato, defined the soul as the core or "essence" of a living being, but argued against its having a separate existence in its entirety. In Aristotle's view, a living thing's soul is its activity, that is, its "life"


but yet the could not prove it "only define it"...

and look at the words they did use to "define it"

Essence of a living bieng

Yet in the same stentance its says "but" argued "against" its having a separtate existance int its enteriry!!

how clear can you get??

they KNEW that if we have a "soul" its only relitive to!! "activity" aka YOUR LIFE here NOW

there is NO age to a soul.. as to have one starts and ends with YOU

i should get paid for this...

ok for all the people who think im a troll fine thats up to you

the motto on ATS is deny IGNORANCE right?

Aristotle Aristotle, following Plato, defined the soul as the core or "essence" of a living being, but argued against its having a separate existence in its entirety. In Aristotle's view, a living thing's soul is its activity, that is, its "life"; for example, the soul of an eye, he wrote, if it were an independent lifeform itself, would be sight. Again, if a knife had a soul, the act of cutting would be that soul, because 'cutting' is the essence of what it is to be a knife. Unlike Plato and the religious traditions, Aristotle did not consider the soul in its entirety as a separate, ghostly occupant of the body (just as we cannot separate the activity of cutting from the knife). As the soul, in Aristotle's view, is an actuality of a living body, it cannot be immortal (when a knife is destroyed, the cutting stops). More precisely, the soul is the "first actuality" of a body: its capacity simply for life itself, apart from the various faculties of the soul, such as sensation, nutrition and so forth, which when exercised constitute its "second" actuality, which we might call its "fulfillment." "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for Aristotle, analogous to "humans have bodies for human activity." The rational activity of the soul's intellective part, along with that of the soul's two other parts—its vegetative and animal parts, which it has in common with other animals—thus in Aristotle's view constitute the essence of a human soul. Aristotle used his concept of the soul in many of his works; the De Anima (On the Soul) provides a good place to start to gain more understanding of his views.

DENY ME THAT..........

and call me a troll.. just because you have a view that is not logical like me telling you the world is round

you deny me my right to speak and call me a troll

You make me sick........

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by DINSTAAR

 

13579 this is not a thread to discuss whether the soul exists or not. The question is for people who already believe in the soul and evolution of the soul(presupposes reincarnation) Please start a separate thread to discuss the existence of the soul.

reply to post by TaraLou

1. We do possess a soul, or some higher essence.

I believe that there are many things w e cannot explain. There are other dimensions that we can prove exist. We cannot prove their nature, but we know they are there. When we can't even explain the temporal dimension we live in it would be very foolish to assume we do not have some kind of connection with the universe in a form of 'soul'.

In the mean time, I think the idea of having a soul is important because it does not effect my ability to reason, and gives me motivation to ask the questions I do and that I enjoy doing.

2. It may well be a game - quite a cruel one.

That is the game humans decided to make for themselves. It's like a surface game. It isn't deep, but you have to think beyond it to get to the real game.

3. We are not meant to be like lilies in the field, just existing, we are meant to find our true purpose here and now.

It is almost like our true purpose is to forever question our own existence and peel back layers of reality to expose a greater truth beneath.

What I say is that it, frankly, did not matter that people believed that the Earth was flat because they did not have the ability to read the stars or navigate great oceans. On the other hand, it is very important to augment ones own beliefs when Galileo comes along.

. If we do not find our true purpose, we become bored, disillusioned and depresssed.

... and then create one.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


OP wants us to leave the topic.

I would enjoy debating the subject further.

Will you start it, or shall I?

reply to post by Indigo_Child

13579 this is not a thread to discuss whether the soul exists or not. The question is for people who already believe in the soul and evolution of the soul(presupposes reincarnation) Please start a separate thread to discuss the existence of the soul.

Indigo im not here to bash your thread .. just let me debate it on public format as you did create it? as i shall show

this is not a thread to discuss whether the soul exists or not.

so why make one about it?

The question is for people who already believe in the soul

you see the logic i am missing here? you said its not about if the soul is real or not

but for people who THINK IT IS even tho you just stated its not about that?

I mean i know my typing and grammer is not the best but that rings alarm bells for me because i can in fact READ what it is your saying!!

and then you say this>..

Please start a separate thread to discuss the existence of the soul.

i dont see what or were you are trying to come at me here let me show u again.. just so i dont look like a # in front of the people who think i am being a troll

The question is for people who already believe in the soul

this is not a thread to discuss whether the soul exists or not.

am i missing something????

reply to post by 13579

Aristotle, following Plato, defined the soul as the core or "essence" of a living being, but argued against its having a separate existence in its entirety. In Aristotle's view, a living thing's soul is its activity, that is, its "life"

As you point out, Aristotle had no more or less ability to logically prove the existence of a soul. Just as much, in fact, as an Atheist (not assuming your personal beliefs, just stating a fact) has in trying to disprove the existence of a soul.

Christian: we have a soul because it seems to be so
Aristotle: assumed we had one and then defined it
Atheist: assumed we didn't have one and deems the lack of proof enough to 'disprove' the existence of a soul

People assume we have all the information and make judgment calls based on another assumption.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
...
Can we, being mere players in a game, effectively explain the processes that create the game itself? Is it logical to assume that we can step outside the game itself and objectively observe the inner workings of the game?

Now to question that premise and ask, how can we assume that their is a game at all? Maybe we do not have an innate function, and all of this talk of 'soul' is just a means that we pass time. Maybe the only function of humanity is simply to be... and all perceived functions are artificial means in order to be.
...
[edit on 2-1-2010 by DINSTAAR]

Great questions. I personally have certainty that I have a soul because I experienced a tiny bit of the afterlife due to a really bad caving accident I had in my early 20's. One of my first memories after passing through was of being congratulated by an untold number of entities on my progress.

Because of that memory I am pretty sure there are goals we are trying to achieve. No idea what they are as most of the knowledge is stripped when you come back. Must be some reason we dont get to know the rules of the game.

One easy way to tell...

an old soul won't go around saying he/she is an old soul.

I am very familiar with the Michael teachings also, from a few years back anyway.

I don't see what it matters if someone is baby/infant/young/mature/old. We all have to move through the process. No cheating! hehe

reply to post by Ceara


A great point. What does it matter if we can pinpoint our own place on the soul-scale. Whether a little runt or an aged seer, we still should strive for greater knowledge and understanding of the universe in order to enhance ourselves.

It also does not matter if you believe in any sort of soul-scale to begin with.