Not everybody has to have a soul

a reply to: SourceTruth

Sleeps good mate, awareness is better.

Sleeps a requirement for such all the same.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: visitedbythem

Come on now, how many have you asked, Nephilim that is?

For that matter, show me a mere Human soul?

The way you can tell is, they always ask what one is, since they don't have one. They want to see it. I just tell them its outside the visible spectrum. They also are preoccupied with sexual behavior. They want to know about that too

originally posted by: khnum
Correct the soulless ones are non-player entities or part of the program itself whose job it is to keep you in the program because if the program goes they go.

Interesting...

So how might one go-about figuring-out whether or not they are a NPC ?

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: Nothin

Of course you had to bring in the slippery slope...

Assuming makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Everything should be questioned. No assumptions should be safe from having doubt cast upon it.

The logical consequences of any assumption must be fully worked out in order to determine flaws in the assumption.

...taking stock: she realized that she was tired of always running up that damn hill...



Have you verified those two final paragraphs, to see if no assumptions are present ?
Are we still pushing that stone up the hill, even though our feet are slipping ?

a reply to: andy06shake

I am seventeen...

a reply to: TerryDon79

You have to make sacrifices to raise your frequency... That includes giving up meat and sex.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: TerryDon79

You have to make sacrifices to raise your frequency... That includes giving up meat and sex.

I prefer to enjoy life. That means not being a 17yo vegan virgin.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: frostjon361

I am only making the claim that there is no solid reasoning behind a certain hypothesis that everyone has a soul. I'm not necessarily trying to prove that not everyone has a soul, I am just pointing out that there is no solid reasoning behind the idea that everyone has a soul.

Okay you mean a Zombie....which we have no real appreciation of anyway...er, same thingy.

a reply to: TerryDon79

If you really want to enjoy life you have to be of a higher frequency. Because these things of having sex and eating meat come with a physical cost of energy drained from you. YOU consent to the energy being drained from you for that temporary sensation of pleasure. That is energy you could have been using to manifest your reality.

a reply to: smurfy

No, I mean a person who has no soul.
This means that they are programmed to act a certain way based on "scripts" in the matrix that source players are experiencing.

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
...oh, and all black people have soul.
a reply to: SourceTruth

Even Idi Amin Dada ?

Really, we don't know that any of us have a soul, that's an assumption to. What defines a soul? What if none of us have one, but we just think we all do.

But going with the whole Matrix idea, it makes perfect sense that not everyone would have one. Maybe we only are programmed to think that ourselves and the people we are closest to have a soul, but anyone outside of our capacity to incorporate into our personal world is just a shell. It's possible the idea of a soul is just that, an idea and it doesn't actually exist anywhere outside of our heads.

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: SourceTruth

What is a soul ? what is it made out of ?

Who knows..

but these guys had one, I'm positive.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: TerryDon79

If you really want to enjoy life you have to be of a higher frequency. Because these things of having sex and eating meat come with a physical cost of energy drained from you. YOU consent to the energy being drained from you for that temporary sensation of pleasure. That is energy you could have been using to manifest your reality.

Suuuuuuuuure.

That’s what all virgins say.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: smurfy

No, I mean a person who has no soul.
This means that they are programmed to act a certain way based on "scripts" in the matrix that source players are experiencing.

No, it doesn't, it doesn't mean anything, your'e talking in brown hamorrhages.

It's like nothing is anywhere until we look there syndrome....A tree that falls when nobody is there never makes a sound,

It's hypothesis hybebole, and by that reasoning.....there is no reason to believe that one has either a soul or no soul, nor is there a reason to believe in 'intelligent design' as creationism, against us generationalist monkeys.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You don't seem to have a grasp on what I am saying...

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: TerryDon79

You don't seem to have a grasp on what I am saying...

I do. I just find it ludicrous as there is zero to back it up.

But hey! Keep on being a virgin. It means there’ll be less boring people in the world.

a reply to: smurfy

What are you bringing up creationism for?

If you think that the idea that not everyone has a soul is flawed, then how is the idea that everyone has a soul any more logical?

It makes fine logical sense to distinguish the concepts of soulless and souls.
If you want to understand the concept of soulless ones better, think of a video game. The people in the game that you interact with are non playable characters. There is nobody logged into that character, they are just a part of the experience.
That is what a soulless one is like, they are just part of the experience that a soul is having.

originally posted by: MaMaa
What defines a soul? What if none of us have one, but we just think we all do.

It is the mind that thinks that it has a soul.
It is the mind that is receiving all of the information after all. The mind is what will think "I have a soul".
But the mind can exist without having a soul experiencing the mind. And so the mind can think to itself it has a soul and it can tell other minds that it has a soul, even if there is no soul connected to it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Saying there is nothing to back it up is one thing, but saying it is ludicrous is another statement. What argument do you have to suggest that this is "ludicrous"?

An idea doesn't have to be considered "ludicrous" just because you haven't seen anything backing it up yet.