Attn: JMS - Souls
David Barnett
Question: do you believe in souls? (cf Soulhunter, River of Souls)
--
David Barnett
Jms at B5
>Question: do you believe in souls? (cf Soulhunter, River of Souls)
>--
Define exactly what you mean by souls.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
WWS
John Dutka wrote:
>
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> : Define exactly what you mean by souls.
>
> Is it even possible to exactly define abstract concepts with the
> concrete terms in which humans think?
I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
person which is independant of their physical existence and still
incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
The question is whether or not one believes in such a thing.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>John Dutka wrote:
>>
>> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>> : Define exactly what you mean by souls.
>>
>> Is it even possible to exactly define abstract concepts with the
>> concrete terms in which humans think?
>
>I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
>person which is independant of their physical existence and still
>incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
>it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
>be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
>
>The question is whether or not one believes in such a thing.
By *that* definition I do not believe such a thing exists, and *I* am a
Christian. [Belief in the resurrection of the dead does NOT require
belief in a soul per this definition].
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>John Dutka wrote:
>>
>> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>> : Define exactly what you mean by souls.
>>
>> Is it even possible to exactly define abstract concepts with the
>> concrete terms in which humans think?
>
>I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
>person which is independant of their physical existence and still
>incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
>it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
>be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
>
>The question is whether or not one believes in such a thing.
Per this definition I am not sure I believe souls exist, and *I* am a
more or less orthodox Christian. (Or, at least if by "non-physical" you
mean to rule out things like information or data).
There are most certainly other possible definitions.
Jms at B5
>person which is independant of their physical existence and still
>incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
>it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
>be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
Except of course that this also defines *mind* just as well as it does *soul*.
The mind exists IN the brain, as the soul reputedly exists IN the body, but you
can poke around someone's cerebral cortex all you want, you won't find *mind*.
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
> >person which is independant of their physical existence and still
> >incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
> >it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
> >be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
>
> Except of course that this also defines *mind* just as well as it does *soul*.
> The mind exists IN the brain, as the soul reputedly exists IN the body, but you
> can poke around someone's cerebral cortex all you want, you won't find *mind*.
>
Neuropsychology is actually doing a fairly good job at attempting to
decipher where in the brain various bits of our mind and personality
live. We aren't there yet, but the progress is significant.
Soul, on the other hand, hasn't gotten much scientific attention, as far
as I know. I'd happily go with the original definition John gave with
the one caveat that I'm unclear what, if any affect, physical processes
have on it.
You know, I always thought Christianity believed in souls, too. Was that
my ignorance? [Please, I don't want a religious war here; just a
statement.]
Best,
Alyson
Dwight Williams
>
> >I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
> >person which is independant of their physical existence and still
> >incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
> >it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
> >be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
>
> Except of course that this also defines *mind* just as well as it does *soul*.
> The mind exists IN the brain, as the soul reputedly exists IN the body, but you
> can poke around someone's cerebral cortex all you want, you won't find *mind*.
Point taken...I have to admit to wondering if you've had a chance to
read _The Terminal Experiment_, which covers this ground somewhat in the
course of its' SF/murder mystery framework...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McClure
> you won't find *mind*.
I think we all know people for whom this is particularly true... ;-)
John W. Kennedy
> You know, I always thought Christianity believed in souls, too. Was that
> my ignorance? [Please, I don't want a religious war here; just a
> statement.]
Yes, although (small-o) orthodox Xtianity also believes that Man is by
nature a creature of flesh, and that at the end of time we will all
again be embodied.
But ever since the Reformation, western Xtianity has been largely
dominated by thought about the state of the souls of the departed at the
present time. (Eastern Xtianity has generally taught the doctrine of
"soul-sleep", whereby we we cease to be aware after death until the
general resurrection.)
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
in_vale...@hotmail.com
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca wrote:
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > >I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
> > >person which is independant of their physical existence and still
> > >incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
> > >it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
> > >be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
> >
> > Except of course that this also defines *mind* just as well as it
does *soul*.
> > The mind exists IN the brain, as the soul reputedly exists IN the
> > can poke around someone's cerebral cortex all you want, you won't
find *mind*.
>
> read _The Terminal Experiment_, which covers this ground somewhat in
> the course of its' SF/murder mystery framework...
Not to mention, being a damn fine read! <g> Author Rob Sawyer, much
like JMS, is a master of pacing and plot structure. All Rob's novels
have a wonderful classic SF feel, focusing on idea(s), while combining
contemporary characterization and a clear mainstream writing style. I
wish more authors were such consumate storytellers.
scott tilson.
Recommended reading for B5, SF, and/or comics fans: HIEROGLYPH #1 by
Robert Delgado, from Dark Horse. A beautifully envisioned cinematic
exploration of an alien world that's not so lifeless as our human
surveyor first thinks! Line art preview at
http://www.darkhorse.com/prev.html?cart=9333627478661357&sku=98172&x=0
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ryan Nock
didn't say you outright did not believe in souls, your belief must go at
least to a certain point. Of course, religion and faith is always a testy
issue, but I don't get offended easily.
I haven't though deeply about what a soul is or isn't, but at its basis, a
soul is a person's mind. I think a soul cannot be separate from what the
body has gone through. Souls might all be similar when they first . . .
are . . . 'created' I suppose, but they change as they are lived. So, when
a person dies, his soul, as it goes to heaven or hell, is akin to that
person, and that person survives--all his memories, likes, foibles, and
quirks.
But a soul is not just the body, though it is linked to it. I think a soul
leaves the body if the brain dies; the soul resides in the brain. (As far as
psuedoscience goes, I'm not going to try to explain myself. I agree with
science all the way, and then fill in the holes with what I believe) But if
you put someone's brain in a different body, the soul would remain the same,
and would just adapt to the new body.
I'm surprised I'm typing this at a B5 newsgroup, but at least this hasn't
gotten to the 'bar room brawl' stage yet.
Jms at B5
>didn't say you outright did not believe in souls, your belief must go at
>least to a certain point.
But of course the definition is key to asking and answering the question.
Unless one can say what one means one can never mean what one says. If you're
talking about an immortal soul that goes to heaven or hell...then my answer is
no. If you're talking about the personality, as in "she's a very soulful
person," or having a lot of soul in one's work...then that's a whole different
*concept*, and in that case being more psychological than spiritual, then the
answer is yes.
As someone else once said...god is in the details. Literally, in this
discussion.
Sandra Bursey
but maybe it's the wording of the definition that maynot quite fit. I do
have a Christian background but not a practicing Christian so I can't be
clear on exactly what constitutes Christian beliefs but have a general idea.
Why I think Christians in general would have a belief in the soul (mind you
Christian are diverse) since seems to me it would be necessary in going to
heaven or hell following death. Now how universial the heaven and hell
thing is amoung Christianity I can't say I just incorporating being exposed
to Salvation Army and Penecostal churches growing up and those are probably
different than american styles of those churches(I'm from NF Canada).
Alyson L. Abramowitz <a...@best.com> wrote in message
news:38422DDF...@best.com...
>
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > >I think it's rather easy to define - a non-physical component of a
> > >person which is independant of their physical existence and still
> > >incorporates all important elements of their personality such that
> > >it would be unmistakeably unique. (being non-physical it would
> > >be undetectable and unaffected by any physical processes)
> >
> > Except of course that this also defines *mind* just as well as it does
*soul*.
> > The mind exists IN the brain, as the soul reputedly exists IN the body,
but you
> > can poke around someone's cerebral cortex all you want, you won't find
*mind*.
> >
>
> Neuropsychology is actually doing a fairly good job at attempting to
> decipher where in the brain various bits of our mind and personality
> live. We aren't there yet, but the progress is significant.
>
> Soul, on the other hand, hasn't gotten much scientific attention, as far
> as I know. I'd happily go with the original definition John gave with
> the one caveat that I'm unclear what, if any affect, physical processes
> have on it.
>
> You know, I always thought Christianity believed in souls, too. Was that
> my ignorance? [Please, I don't want a religious war here; just a
> statement.]
>
> Best,
> Alyson
>
David Barnett
news:19991127233443...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
: >I am told you are an atheist; I am just agnostic.
: >Question: do you believe in souls? (cf Soulhunter, River of Souls)
: >--
: Define exactly what you mean by souls.
Unfortunately, I can't!
You've answered my question with a question.
Can you answer your question, and then answer mine from your definition?
I don't believe in them, whatever the definition, much as I would like to -
would mean some form of life after death.
Apologies for the time lapse with this reply; have only just subscribed to
the ng.
--
David Barnett
JK
There's not merely one sole answer.
(Sorry. Couldn't help it.)
-JK
Stanley Friesen
>I kinda thought believe in souls was within the teachings of Christianity
>but maybe it's the wording of the definition that maynot quite fit. ...
>Why I think Christians in general would have a belief in the soul (mind you
>Christian are diverse) since seems to me it would be necessary in going to
>heaven or hell following death. ...
Well, the basic Christian beliefs require that one's *self* survives
death in *some* manner. The soul as defined in a previous posting
is*one* possible means by which this might occur. There are others.
Now one could use a simple definition of soul as "that part of a person
that partakes of the resurrection", in which case most Christians would
assent to belief in a soul. But such a definition is rather vacuous, as
it does not specify quite what sort of thing this might *be*.
WWS
In fact, there's quite a bit of Christian tradition and belief (more common
the farther back you go in time) that the actual physical body is what
will be resurrected. This is why there was so much of an emphasis on a
"Christian" burial, and why cremation was supposed to be such a vile
and pagan practice. Modern Christians tend to have gotten away from this,
though, and mostly favor a less physical interpretation. (mostly)
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
James Bell
I was going to make a similar point, adding that the belief in a non-physical type
of "soul" resurrection (or more often, an immortal soul) predates Christianity by
a very long time. Christian religions didn't adopt this belief until well after
Christianity's establishment in the first century.
Jim
Stanley Friesen
>In fact, there's quite a bit of Christian tradition and belief (more common
>the farther back you go in time) that the actual physical body is what
>though, and mostly favor a less physical interpretation. (mostly)
Though anybody that actually pays attention to the Creeds knows
otherwise: from the Apostle's Creed: "and the resurrection of the body".
David Barnett
news:8ptIOHek0ucR1F...@4ax.com...
: Well, the basic Christian beliefs require that one's *self* survives
: death in *some* manner. The soul as defined in a previous posting
: is*one* possible means by which this might occur. There are others.
:
: Now one could use a simple definition of soul as "that part of a person
: that partakes of the resurrection", in which case most Christians would
: assent to belief in a soul. But such a definition is rather vacuous, as
: it does not specify quite what sort of thing this might *be*.
IMHO no-one can make this definition less "vacuous", though I would be
interested to read any attempts.
--
David Barnett