Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every single part of me that is rational says that the soul is probably an illusion, but on the other hand I intuitively believe that it is real, though probably not in the sense that Christians believe it is.
I make a distinction between the spirit and the soul, myself, because of the confusion of the religious implications. I do believe that most all humans are body, mind and spirit and I recognize that some people call the spiritual part of themselves the soul. But that part of us existed before organized religion.
I rather think it is in fulfillment of spiritual needs that people developed the earliest religions. And music. Is there any group of people in the history of the world which doesn't have a form of music? I like to think that music is the language of the spirit.
And I agree with that poster who thinks with meat that our emotional responses and needs are a strong drive. I'd call them part of the spiritual aspect of humans - how we relate to our environment, others and our sources of well-being.
There are no final answers, of course. For me I can see these three facets of human existence and the need to address them for wellness. Others see other paradigms that work better for them.
What's ultimately important, however you see it, is in order to achieve maximum wellness and potential to try to achieve a balance in tending to these life areas.
I make a distinction between the spirit and the soul, myself ...
As a child in a Christian home I used to try to get the distinction straight, but different people had different explanations. It was my first indication that people were making things up as they went along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
There are no final answers, of course. For me I can see these three facets of human existence and the need to address them for wellness. Others see other paradigms that work better for them.
What's ultimately important, however you see it, is in order to achieve maximum wellness and potential to try to achieve a balance in tending to these life areas.
I don't think a godless / materialistic worldview suffers from a holistic perspective. There is the physical, the mental, and the emotional aspects of existence. They clearly influence each other and all are needed for an optimal whole to exist. The ascetic abhors the body, the rationalist abhors the emotions, the musician or poet in some ways abhors the intellect. It is necessary to embrace and work with all three.
Confusing the emotional / subjective / subconscious responses of our being with the "spiritual" is, to me, creating an unnecessary phenomenon to explain a subject that is already hard to get one's brain around from a purely intellectual standpoint. Rather than fear it and reject it as something originating outside ourselves, rather than projecting it into the universe, maybe we'd be better off owning it.
I make a distinction between the spirit and the soul, myself, because of the confusion of the religious implications. I do believe that most all humans are body, mind and spirit and I recognize that some people call the spiritual part of themselves the soul. But that part of us existed before organized religion.
I rather think it is in fulfillment of spiritual needs that people developed the earliest religions. And music. Is there any group of people in the history of the world which doesn't have a form of music? I like to think that music is the language of the spirit.
And I agree with that poster who thinks with meat that our emotional responses and needs are a strong drive. I'd call them part of the spiritual aspect of humans - how we relate to our environment, others and our sources of well-being.
There are no final answers, of course. For me I can see these three facets of human existence and the need to address them for wellness. Others see other paradigms that work better for them.
What's ultimately important, however you see it, is in order to achieve maximum wellness and potential to try to achieve a balance in tending to these life areas.
I rather like that. Music as the "language of the spirit", that is. since music can stir us to any emotion, at any time, it makes sense. I suppose that all creativity that expresses some part of us could be considered the spirit speaking. Makes perfect sense to me.
As a child in a Christian home I used to try to get the distinction straight, but different people had different explanations. It was my first indication that people were making things up as they went along.
I don't think a godless / materialistic worldview suffers from a holistic perspective. There is the physical, the mental, and the emotional aspects of existence. They clearly influence each other and all are needed for an optimal whole to exist. The ascetic abhors the body, the rationalist abhors the emotions, the musician or poet in some ways abhors the intellect. It is necessary to embrace and work with all three.
Confusing the emotional / subjective / subconscious responses of our being with the "spiritual" is, to me, creating an unnecessary phenomenon to explain a subject that is already hard to get one's brain around from a purely intellectual standpoint. Rather than fear it and reject it as something originating outside ourselves, rather than projecting it into the universe, maybe we'd be better off owning it.
You said that so well, mordant, and I understand what you are saying. When a religious person explains his spiritual side he is usually going to get into theology and we all know even members of the same group can part company at that point. It becomes very subjective.
I'm not sure about the word abhor. Perhaps instead it is an unfamiliarity and therefor a fear, that people have towards those other facets. A lack of balance? Usually under the most strong negative emotions there exists an underlying, more vulnerable cause.
The mystical aspect of the spirit, I think, is that it calls us to our better self (think the upper levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs) in that the more developed and satisfied it becomes the more satisfaction it takes in giving, in bonding, in developing accord with others.
To me that's a paradox and does raise us beyond earthly concerns.
A simple example of that is the feeling produced when you sing or play music with a group of people. I won't wax too ecstatic about that but if you've experienced it it won't surprise you that one of the promises in heaven is singing the Divine's praises forevermore.
It surely raises unanswerable questions about what we are and what our purpose is. Our nature is to seek to explain and our dominant facet will take the reins. But what if the explanation lays in a balanced resolution of the three?
You can wax poetically about the soul, but I believe it is another ego based, manmade concept. Do you also believe in the River Styx?
With two words you have explained the origin of the soul's concept, Socrates introduced it and it was followed by theosophical organizations they understand the importance of establishing a link between man and a cosmic root, an universal spirituality, then the concept of free will as a right and duty bestowed on man, we live in the modern era, so those who are sick of epilepsy, do not run the risk to end up burned alive, as possessed and without a soul, today as yesterday opinions are created by those who got power to move the great masses .. they lay down the law, allowing everyone the chance to own.. a virtual free will
If the past does not exist .. by definition, as it has already happened, the present, can not be defined because it is in the making, the future is not mentally classified as mental dimension, what space and size can be attributed to the soul's concept?
I think some people don't have a "soul". I actually saw some people that looked like they had no soul but someone thought I probably just saw some of the meth heads. I am convinced that some people don't have a soul, you know the type that have no capability to love, no compassion, attributes like that. I try to avoid them since they give off bad vibes.
I am a Buddhist and we do not believe in the concept of a soul. We do believe in ghosts though as they are one of the 6 realms of desire. I think I can shed some light into what *I* personally believe (which is consistent with Buddhism).
When a person dies, they are rebirthed and where they are rebirthed at is based on their karma. There are 6 realms that you can end up in. I won't get into all that because it's not really relevant here. Anyway, I've already stated that I do not believe in a soul. So how is rebirth possible? The way it was explained to me was imagine there is a candle burning. You take that candle and use it to light another candle. The flame “passes” to the next but has a unique identity (which is how this concept differs from a soul).
B.S. You can't apparently answer to all sects of Buddhism. Where else does the concept of reincarnation stem from? The soul leaving the body and being re-birthed to pay off karmic debt. And, not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. As a Buddhist, I thought you knew that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that our emotional responses and needs are a strong drive. I'd call them part of the spiritual aspect of humans - how we relate to our environment, others and our sources of well-being. 
