Mastermason.com Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Forum Lounge (off-topic & lighter discussions) > General Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Define SOUL?  Do only humans have one?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Define SOUL? Do only humans have one?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 1:24am
To be clear... I was apologizing only for steering the thread off topic. I issue no apologies for any of my statements regarding religion, religious beliefs, or ideas. If people are offended, so be it. While I do not try to be deliberately offensive, their finding them offensive does not constitute an argument against any of my statements.

Edited by Adept? - August/20/2016 at 1:26am
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 6:44am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

To be clear... I was apologizing only for steering the thread off topic. I issue no apologies for any of my statements regarding religion, religious beliefs, or ideas. If people are offended, so be it. While I do not try to be deliberately offensive, their finding them offensive does not constitute an argument against any of my statements.


Hence my agreement with your comment about arrogance. One cannot claim to not want to be offensive, when one is clearly that, and then turn around and blame the target of one's attacks for being offended when the attacks were purposeful and successful in creating offense.

You have no idea how offensive you are in all this. You say that find yourself offended by what you say is the arrogance of others (them speaking their truth) yet you hold as an acceptable standard that your behavior is not offensive when you speak your "truth" and others are offended. You then dismiss your liability for speaking your "truth" by blaming the victims of your attack who voice opposition, those who respond quite appropriately to your attacks. All this is arrogance and obviously hypocritical behavior.

Doctor, heal thyself.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 7:20am
Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

 Should anyone care to continue this discussion, I am available via private message.

You must have misunderstood this statement... or perhaps you didn't read it all.  

I shall respond to you in a private message, since you obviously desire to continue.
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 7:40am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

 Should anyone care to continue this discussion, I am available via private message.

You must have misunderstood this statement... or perhaps you didn't read it all.
I shall respond to you in a private message, since you obviously desire to continue

Perhaps you misunderstood my responses and my intent. If I wanted to go private, I would have. My responses are purposefully public, as were yours.

You might respond to me in private, but the door you opened is quite public and demands public resolution.

It's clear that you have yet to accept that you are suffering from the same maladies that you claim others suffer from, that you find offense in the same things you do offensively and that you do not see that you have a double standard in your militancy.

For someone who embraces being blunt about what you consider nonsense, you sure do embrace much unnecessary nonsense of your own.

Edited by coach - August/20/2016 at 7:59am
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 8:38am
I have sent you a private message.  Reply if you choose.

I must say, I'm more than a little confused by your strong opposition... In our earlier private correspondences, and phone conversation, you seemed to agree with me.  If I recall correctly, you stated something to that effect in one of your messages.  (I may still have it, I'm not sure) [I did still have it, you said "I can sorely relate to your experiences"]  At any rate, it would seem that either you misunderstood me, I you, or both.  

Should you choose not to respond to my private message, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  (which we'll probably have to do either way) 

Again, apologies to Grim for hijacking his thread.  


Edited by Adept? - August/20/2016 at 8:45am
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 8:57am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

I have sent you a private message.  Reply if you choose.

I must say, I'm more than a little confused by your strong opposition...


Quite understandable. You have no idea how you're coming across and believe militancy should not have to be defended. By it's nature, it attacks. Attacks are uncivil. Incivility that is believed to be acceptable when you are doing it, but unacceptable when others do it, is a mark of hypocrisy and is arrogant.

Quote In our earlier private correspondences, and phone conversation, you seemed to agree with me.  


On what we may or may not agree is not the issue; it is your militancy that is.

BTW - What I stated is that I can relate to your experiences. There is much nonsense put forth in this world. It is our job to filter it out for ourselves and let others to the same for themselves, without attacking them when we believe otherwise.

Quote If I recall correctly, you stated something to that effect in one of your messages.  (I may still have it, I'm not sure)  At any rate, it would seem that either you misunderstood me, I you, or both.  


It appears that you have done just that. I can relate to being offended, and I can relate to being offensive. I'm making inroads to improving both conditions.

Quote Should you choose not to respond to my private message, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  (which we'll probably have to do either way) 

Agree to disagree sounds best.   
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by BroScubaSteve BroScubaSteve wrote:


Soul as in going up to some cloud in the sky where I help my family members win bets when called upon?

No ....

Soul as something beyond the universe?

Sure, I'll entertain it.





A soul (if it exists) is not a 'ghost'.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Again, apologies to Grim for hijacking his thread.  


Apologies not necessary.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

The soul, like gods, and religion in general; is an invention of the human mind.  Humans have a well documented propensity toward wishful thinking.


An invention, or a discovery?!
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2016 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

The soul, like gods, and religion in general; is an invention of the human mind.  Humans have a well documented propensity toward wishful thinking.


An invention, or a discovery?!

Yes. It doesn't make sense. If one takes time to think it through, one would find quite quickly that the soul is not an invention at all. Equally, a discovery doesn't make sense either. I put forth that it is neither. It lends itself more toward humans merely becoming aware that the soul is occurring more than anything else.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/21/2016 at 6:33am
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

No one has yet answered me the second part of the question whether only humans have a soul. I believe all living things have a part that survives and continues after the death of the physical part, which is my definition of "soul." I have no evidence for this, it is just a gut feeling.


Hi droche,

As a Roman Catholic, my faith teaches/instructs/indoctrinates that only humans have souls. Yet the Catholic definition of soul eludes me and uses the word 'essence' as the descriptive term. And this is too vague and nebulous to suit me.

Every faith on the planet holds differing views on 'animism' and I was curious as to the Masonic view of the soul?
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/21/2016 at 6:36am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

The soul, like gods, and religion in general; is an invention of the human mind.  Humans have a well documented propensity toward wishful thinking.


An invention, or a discovery?!

Yes. It doesn't make sense. If one takes time to think it through, one would find quite quickly that the soul is not an invention at all. Equally, a discovery doesn't make sense either. I put forth that it is neither. It lends itself more toward humans merely becoming aware that the soul is occurring more than anything else.


The soul as an invention, discovery, or awareness? Yet aware of what?
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/21/2016 at 6:55am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

The soul, like gods, and religion in general; is an invention of the human mind.  Humans have a well documented propensity toward wishful thinking.


An invention, or a discovery?!

Yes. It doesn't make sense. If one takes time to think it through, one would find quite quickly that the soul is not an invention at all. Equally, a discovery doesn't make sense either. I put forth that it is neither. It lends itself more toward humans merely becoming aware that the soul is occurring more than anything else.


The soul as an invention, discovery, or awareness? Yet aware of what?

You cannot invent an occurrence.
You cannot discover something that is already occurring. All you can do is admit that you are aware that it is occurring.
Define "soul" and you define that awareness.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/24/2016 at 9:23am
Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

 I do condemn the bible as immoral fictitious nonsense.


Ironic, since 'morality' is the Bible's main strength when considering all its other weaknesses. Have you carefully read: Job, Deuteronomy, Numbers, the psalms??? 


Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

It is Christianities "sacred" text.


And the 'Holy Book of Law' of Masonry?


Originally posted by adept2 adept2 wrote:

    Now, It could easily be said that I'm "cherry picking" the bad bits of the book.


Yes, extremely so. You must balance the good with the bad (like Yin & Yang) and make a basis of comparison. Also, you seem to be 'cherry picking' exactly as the anti-Masons cherry pick at Freemasonry (which I resent). This is just a rhetorical question (no reply needed): do Masons worship Baphomet?; do Masons hold Jacob Frank type sex orgies in their lodges?; are Masons devil worshipers?; are Masons taking over the world?; are Masons atheists?; are Masons the anti-Christ?; etc.......   They are according to the misinterpretations of the anti-Masons. So if you study the 'enemy' (sun Tzu The Art of War) then you can for a basis for your own position.



 
Originally posted by Adept2 Adept2 wrote:

By the standards set forth by this "moral book" somewhere in the area of a billion people in India are already doomed to hell, because they missed the revelation. No matter how good these people are, they are doomed to spend eternity in hell, simply because they were born in the wrong area of the world, and received the wrong theology.


Doesn't the same apply to profanes?




Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

    While I respect an individuals right to believe whatever nonsense they wish, I will exercise MY right to find their beliefs absolutely ridiculous, obscene, vulgar, ignorant, immoral, and evil.  And I will "fight" (with words) against this ignorance whenever and where ever possible.


Good for you! I agree with your position. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

That being clarified, it would behoove you adept? to couch your rhetoric with clarity & rigor: logic, syntax, and grammar. State your case with reason and well thought out arguments - not dogmatism or absolute statements. Identify fact from fiction and cite your 'primary' sources well (i.e. not Wikipedia - wiki is intellectual idolatry). Master logical fallacies. And you will pass peer review.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/24/2016 at 9:31am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot invent an occurrence.


Correct. Occurrences are 'discovered'.


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot discover something that is already occurring.


No? The scientific method is based on discovering occurrences.


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

All you can do is admit that you are aware that it is occurring.

Differentiate 'aware' from 'discovery'? Doesn't discovery make you aware? Discovery comes first, awareness comes second?


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Define "soul" and you define that awareness.


You made a discovery!   
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
droche View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/03/2008
Location: Worcester, Mass
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote droche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/24/2016 at 10:47am
Grimoire, see my comment in the other related thread re your definition of "soul." You started this thread asking what the definition of "soul" is, yet you seem to evading requests to offer your definition. What gives?
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/24/2016 at 10:53am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot invent an occurrence.
Correct. Occurrences are 'discovered'.
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot discover something that is already occurring.
No? The scientific method is based on discovering occurrences.
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

All you can do is admit that you are aware that it is occurring.
Differentiate 'aware' from 'discovery'? Doesn't discovery make you aware? Discovery comes first, awareness comes second?
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Define "soul" and you define that awareness.
You made a discovery!   

It all sounds like mental pleasuring at this point and in circular fashion. You have yet to define anything. Nothing of value has been offered. Time to move on.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/24/2016 at 5:58pm
I'm not going to waste my time arguing against your statements above in which you quoted my post.  The post itself is argument enough, and stands for itself.   I'll just respond to this one statement.

Originally posted by grimoirea3 grimoirea3 wrote:

 State your case with reason and well thought out arguments
 

My response is this.  I DID!  

P.S.  Not a word of it came from Wikipedia.  Not that it would matter if any of it had... facts are facts.

"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/30/2016 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot invent an occurrence.
Correct. Occurrences are 'discovered'.
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You cannot discover something that is already occurring.
No? The scientific method is based on discovering occurrences.
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

All you can do is admit that you are aware that it is occurring.
Differentiate 'aware' from 'discovery'? Doesn't discovery make you aware? Discovery comes first, awareness comes second?
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Define "soul" and you define that awareness.
You made a discovery!   
 

[QUOTE=coach]It all sounds like mental pleasuring at this point and in circular fashion. You have yet to define anything. Nothing of value has been offered. Time to move on.

Opinion.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/30/2016 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time arguing against your statements above in which you quoted my post.  The post itself is argument enough, and stands for itself.   I'll just respond to this one statement.

Originally posted by grimoirea3 grimoirea3 wrote:

 State your case with reason and well thought out arguments
 

My response is this.  I DID!  

[QUOTE=Adept?]P.S.  Not a word of it came from Wikipedia.

Excellent.  Wikipedia is intellectual idolatry.  Quoting Wiki definitions does not prove you understand the concept you're explaining, wiki is not definitive, wiki sources cannot be substantiated, and wiki is simply a 'graffitti' wall of personal opinions, not scholarly research.  And this is the view held by academic professionals.




Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/30/2016 at 3:13pm
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

" You started this thread asking what the definition of "soul" is, yet you seem to evading requests to offer your definition. What gives?

Yes I did the asking.  But only one or two actually tried to answer the questions.  The rest of this thread is a huge digression away from topic - define soul?

I wouldn't be asking Freemasons this question if I already knew the answer - hence my question: DEFINE SOUL?

And mostly for answers I'm getting circumlocutions and equivocations and reversals.

One of the problems I am having with my Roman Catholic faith is the lack of a definitive description of what the soul is.  Other religions have the same problem with soul description.  I cannot accept that there is no soul, yet I cannot define it either.

P.S. Is there any way to number these forum answers to refer back to various answers??  Thanx.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/30/2016 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

One of the problems I am having with my Roman Catholic faith is the lack of a definitive description of what the soul is.  Other religions have the same problem with soul description.  I cannot accept that there is no soul, yet I cannot define it either.

You would have had a lot more success with this thread had simply stated this up front rather than contributing to the ongoing circle jerking and coming across like an evasive troll.

If you want a definition, I recommend that you stop thinking of soul as a "thing", like most everyone assumes.

Start understanding that soul is a characteristic indicative of synergy. Soul appears only when synergy occurs; and disappears when synergy stops. Soul also produces a track record when the characteristic appears.

If you are a bible believer or even someone who looks to the bible for clues, your first clue to what I am referring to can be found in Genesis 2:7:

And Hashem Elohim formed the adam of the aphar min haadamah, and breathed into his nostrils the nishmat chayyim; and the adam became a nefesh chayyah.

(And the LORD God formed the man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.)

Soul is revealed through some or all of the following characteristics:
1) Animation
2) Thought
3) Awareness
4) Understanding
------ (starting to get also into spirit here) ------
5) Perception
6) Insight
7) Emotion

Have at it...


      
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2016 at 11:31am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by pointwithinacircle pointwithinacircle wrote:

My best guess is that the names soul and spirit are symbols for the two great aspects of the human psyche. 

I disagree with your guess. One is part of the soul. The other helps manifest it, but it is not the soul.


Sounds like Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHY explanation of the soul? Or the Egyptian 'KA'?
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2016 at 12:14pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by pointwithinacircle pointwithinacircle wrote:

My best guess is that the names soul and spirit are symbols for the two great aspects of the human psyche. 

I disagree with your guess. One is part of the soul. The other helps manifest it, but it is not the soul.


Sounds like Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHY explanation of the soul? Or the Egyptian 'KA'?


What "Sounds like Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHY explanation of the soul? Or the Egyptian 'KA'?"
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 9:19am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by pointwithinacircle pointwithinacircle wrote:

My best guess is that the names soul and spirit are symbols for the two great aspects of the human psyche. 

I disagree with your guess. One is part of the soul. The other helps manifest it, but it is not the soul.


Sounds like Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHY explanation of the soul? Or the Egyptian 'KA'?


What "Sounds like Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHY explanation of the soul? Or the Egyptian 'KA'?"

A quick scan of the above posts: Coach's reply - One part is soul.  The other helps manifest if, but it is not the soul.

This is extremely familiar to me.  In fact a many faceted soul is found in the Ancient Egyptian religion in which the 'ka' is just one but important aspect of the soul.  The superstitious ancient Egyptians took a multi-aspect 'gestalt' view of the human soul, that it was divided into five or more parts, with the 'ka' being equivalent to a 'spirit'.  Remember, modern philosophers and theologians agree that soul and spirit are one in the same.

Following the Egyptian interpretation, Madame Blavatsky invented a new religion called THEOSOPHY, in which the soul, Egyptian like, is multi-faceted and the 'spirit' helps hold the soul together or the spirit helps manifests it.

This is also found in Jewish eschatology, especially in the book ZOHAR (kabbalah) which not only has a multi-faceted soul, but also espouses the transmigration of souls, from one human being to another after death.  Thus Jacob Franks claimed he was the reincarnation of Sabbatai Tsevi (the messaiah).

So One Part Soul - the other (spirit?) helps manifest it - is a view held by the superstitious ancient Egyptians, Theosophers, Kabbalists, Frankists, and others.  But not contemporary theologians.  Interesting.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 9:27am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

... Remember, modern philosophers and theologians agree that soul and spirit are one in the same...

Well then... if they all agree that should settle it. What's next to discuss.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 9:41am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

... Remember, modern philosophers and theologians agree that soul and spirit are one in the same...

Well then... if they all agree that should settle it. What's next to discuss.

PLENTY to discuss.  If/then conditional:

IF modern theologians see the soul and spirit as one,

THEN why do other theologians still maintain that the soul is multi-faceted?

This is a conundrum which 'might' be solved using a syllogism or a sorite?  Somebody is mistaken since no one is infallible.

More if/then conditionals:

IF there is a soul, THEN how do humans prove it exists?

IF there is a soul, THEN why would it be whole or multi-faceted?

IF there is a soul, THEN why do religions/philosophy hold so many versions of it?

BUT! - I think the answer might lie in the very nature of the IF/THEN Conditional itself (without using a syllogism or sorite): 
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 1:18pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

 The superstitious ancient Egyptians took a multi-aspect 'gestalt' view of the human soul, that it was divided into five or more parts, with the 'ka' being equivalent to a 'spirit'...
...So One Part Soul - the other (spirit?) helps manifest it - is a view held by the superstitious ancient Egyptians, Theosophers, Kabbalists, Frankists, and others.  But not contemporary theologians.  Interesting.

What is interesting to me is how you recognize others beliefs and religions as superstitious, but not your own.  VERY interesting indeed.  Wacko
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

IF modern theologians see the soul and spirit as one,

THEN why do other theologians still maintain that the soul is multi-faceted?

Easy!  People play make believe differently.  


Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

IF there is a soul, THEN how do humans prove it exists?

Good question... and good luck with your experiments to find the answer.  I'll be looking for your future publication of your findings.  



Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

IF there is a soul, THEN why do religions/philosophy hold so many versions of it?
 

Again, people have individual imaginations, and they play make believe differently.


"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
droche View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/03/2008
Location: Worcester, Mass
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote droche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 1:38pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

" You started this thread asking what the definition of "soul" is, yet you seem to evading requests to offer your definition. What gives?

Yes I did the asking.  But only one or two actually tried to answer the questions.  The rest of this thread is a huge digression away from topic - define soul?

I wouldn't be asking Freemasons this question if I already knew the answer - hence my question: DEFINE SOUL?

And mostly for answers I'm getting circumlocutions and equivocations and reversals.

One of the problems I am having with my Roman Catholic faith is the lack of a definitive description of what the soul is.  Other religions have the same problem with soul description.  I cannot accept that there is no soul, yet I cannot define it either.

P.S. Is there any way to number these forum answers to refer back to various answers??  Thanx.


Well you finally gave an answer. The fact that you do not know is an acceptable answer to me. In case you missed it, I gave my definition of "soul" a while ago: that part of oneself that survives the death of the physical body.

So back to your original question: Do only humans have a soul? I think I might have answered that also in the same post but it was so many posts ago I can't remember. My own belief is that all animals, perhaps even plants have a soul, as I define it. Do I know for sure? Of course not, but my belief is pretty strong. Some denominations I think teach that only humans have a soul. To me this is kind of arrogant. For example, I find it difficult to believe that I have a soul, but my dog, who is so affectionate, protective and loyal does not. Humans share more characteristics with animals than not, so why not a soul, as I define it?

Of course everyone has a difficult time defining "soul." It is so abstract that it is beyond the realm of the human mind to understand. Perhaps in the evolutionary process, beings who come after us (assuming all of us who are here now don't wipe out everything there is) will have a more clear understanding.
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 3:14pm
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Well you finally gave an answer. The fact that you do not know is an acceptable answer to me. In case you missed it, I gave my definition of "soul" a while ago: that part of oneself that survives the death of the physical body.

So back to your original question: Do only humans have a soul? I think I might have answered that also in the same post but it was so many posts ago I can't remember. My own belief is that all animals, perhaps even plants have a soul, as I define it. Do I know for sure? Of course not, but my belief is pretty strong. Some denominations I think teach that only humans have a soul. To me this is kind of arrogant. For example, I find it difficult to believe that I have a soul, but my dog, who is so affectionate, protective and loyal does not. Humans share more characteristics with animals than not, so why not a soul, as I define it?

Of course everyone has a difficult time defining "soul." It is so abstract that it is beyond the realm of the human mind to understand. Perhaps in the evolutionary process, beings who come after us (assuming all of us who are here now don't wipe out everything there is) will have a more clear understanding.

Brother,

I propose an entirely different view and claim the second proposed thread question "Do only humans have one?" is preposterous and utterly misleading.

Humans don't have souls. Humans ARE souls!

Which when you think about this even for a little bit, the statement answers the first question: Define SOUL?




Edited by coach - September/01/2016 at 3:15pm
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
droche View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/03/2008
Location: Worcester, Mass
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote droche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 5:09pm
Yes, I think in the overall grand scheme of things the basic human foundation is the soul. Is this also true of animals, maybe even plants?
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Yes, I think in the overall grand scheme of things the basic human foundation is the soul. Is this also true of animals, maybe even plants?

They meet the basic definition, as in, they don't have souls; they ARE souls.

Edited by coach - September/01/2016 at 5:24pm
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
droche View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/03/2008
Location: Worcester, Mass
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote droche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2016 at 7:34pm
That's my feeling.
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 4:33am
Originally posted by grimoirea3 grimoirea3 wrote:

define soul, do only humans have one.


    I define "soul" or "spirit" (one and the same as far as I'm concerned) as conciseness. Our conciseness is contained within our brains. We humans are aware of our conciseness, and our finite existence on this spec of cosmic dust we call planet earth. So by my personal definition, we are just one of many species on earth with brains, and conciseness.

    We humans however, being aware as we are of our limited time here have developed myth after myth after silly myth about what happens to our conciseness after our bodies fail and we die. "soul/spirit" is a direct result of that wish thinking. A desire to believe that there is something inside us that continues to be, after we cease to be. The desire to live on after death.
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 9:31am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

   "Do only humans have one?" is preposterous and utterly misleading.


That is a question, not a statement. There is nothing misleading about an interogative! Is this the source of confusion that no one knows the difference between a question and a statement? Do you see this (?) - that is called a question mark. It indicates a question being asked, not a statement being made. Questions are not misleading - a question is a request for information.

PLEASE STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD!

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Humans don't have souls. Humans ARE souls!


Now that is tremendously interesting. Kant avoided this subject but Kant's negligence was brought out by Schopenhauer.

Yet despite coach's obvious absolute statement (always a mistake to make), it seems coach has created a paradox from a previous post where he recomends to drop the view that souls as things.

Syllogism:
If humans are souls
and humans are things,
----------------------
Then souls are things?

Of course I might have gotten my major and minor premises wrong, but this is an interesting paradox none the less (note: paradoxes are not contradictions).




Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 9:48am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

IF modern theologians see the soul and spirit as one,

THEN why do other theologians still maintain that the soul is multi-faceted?

[QUOTE=Adept?]Easy!  People play make believe differently.


Does Masonry also fall into that category?? Is Noah make believe? Is Solomon make believe? Is the G.A.O.T.U. make believe?

Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 10:01am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

   "Do only humans have one?" is preposterous and utterly misleading.


That is a question, not a statement. There is nothing misleading about an interogative! Is this the source of confusion that no one knows the difference between a question and a statement? Do you see this (?) - that is called a question mark. It indicates a question being asked, not a statement being made. Questions are not misleading - a question is a request for information.

PLEASE STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD!


Notice he is now claiming victim status.
Notice his dismissal of the obvious.
Notice how he claims a question cannot be misleading.
Notice how he complains about things that have nothing to do with the thread.
Notice how he hijacks the thread and complains about it being hijacked.


Quote
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Humans don't have souls. Humans ARE souls!
Now that is tremendously interesting. Kant avoided this subject but Kant's negligence was brought out by Schopenhauer.

Yet despite coach's obvious absolute statement (always a mistake to make), it seems coach has created a paradox from a previous post where he recomends to drop the view that souls as things.

Syllogism:
If humans are souls
and humans are things,
----------------------
Then souls are things?

Of course I might have gotten my major and minor premises wrong, but this is an interesting paradox none the less (note: paradoxes are not contradictions).


Notice how he views humans as things.
Notice how he still avoids answering the questions posed.
Notice how his training doesn't prevent his behavior.

Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 10:17am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

   "Do only humans have one?" is preposterous and utterly misleading.


That is a question, not a statement. There is nothing misleading about an interogative! Is this the source of confusion that no one knows the difference between a question and a statement? Do you see this (?) - that is called a question mark. It indicates a question being asked, not a statement being made. Questions are not misleading - a question is a request for information.

PLEASE STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD!


Notice he is now claiming victim status.
Notice his dismissal of the obvious.
Notice how he claims a question cannot be misleading.
Notice how he complains about things that have nothing to do with the thread.
Notice how he hijacks the thread and complains about it being hijacked.


Quote
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Humans don't have souls. Humans ARE souls!
Now that is tremendously interesting. Kant avoided this subject but Kant's negligence was brought out by Schopenhauer.

Yet despite coach's obvious absolute statement (always a mistake to make), it seems coach has created a paradox from a previous post where he recomends to drop the view that souls as things.

Syllogism:
If humans are souls
and humans are things,
----------------------
Then souls are things?

Of course I might have gotten my major and minor premises wrong, but this is an interesting paradox none the less (note: paradoxes are not contradictions).


Notice how he views humans as things.
Notice how he still avoids answering the questions posed.
Notice how his training doesn't prevent his behavior.



I got both premises wrong - if that was what you were trying to say??

Souls are not things according to Coach. See his above post [these posts really need to be numbered].

Now let me try again.

Syllogism II:

All Souls are not things (according to coach)
All humans are souls (according to coach)
---------------------------
Therefore humans are not things?
or
Humans don't have souls?

My major premise (from coach: Souls are not things)
My minor premise (from coach: humans are souls)
Conclusion: ?????

Could somebody adept at syllogisms help me out here? This is an interesting paradox. Thank you coach!   
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 10:27am
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Yes, I think in the overall grand scheme of things the basic human foundation is the soul. Is this also true of animals, maybe even plants?


But that is Pantheism, that plants & animals have a soul - which every denomination of Christianity has rejected.

But Pantheism is found within Gnosticism, and those belief systems which emphasize Gnosticism.

Comparative Religion & the Philosophy of Religion explains all this interesting stuff.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 11:08am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:



Does Masonry also fall into that category?? Is Noah make believe? Is Solomon make believe? Is the G.A.O.T.U. make believe?




Yes
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 11:14am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Could somebody adept at syllogisms help me out here? This is an interesting paradox.

Creating syllogisms with undefined terms is analogous to trying to fertilize your spouse by spilling your seed everywhere but where it counts most. You might enjoy it, but all it does is make a mess without producing any significant results.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 11:17am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:


Creating syllogisms with undefined terms is analogous to trying to fertilize your spouse by spilling your seed everywhere but where it counts most. You might enjoy it, but all it does is make a mess without producing any significant results.


Ha!
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
droche View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/03/2008
Location: Worcester, Mass
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote droche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Yes, I think in the overall grand scheme of things the basic human foundation is the soul. Is this also true of animals, maybe even plants?


But that is Pantheism, that plants & animals have a soul - which every denomination of Christianity has rejected.

But Pantheism is found within Gnosticism, and those belief systems which emphasize Gnosticism.

Comparative Religion & the Philosophy of Religion explains all this interesting stuff.


I am sorry to hear that every Christian denomination has rejected the fact that animals and plants do not have souls; I knew some did reject that fact, not all. Are you sure? Oh well, regardless, that is my belief.  Like I said, it seems a bit arrogant and uppity to think we are the only ones who have souls. So, I believe in something pantheists believe in. I don't know what else they believe in, but I don't think of myself as a Pantheist. Aside from what you just wrote I don't know anything about Pantheism. I've done a bit of reading about Gnosticism and there are some things about it that makes sense to me. Whether it's true, who knows?


Edited by droche - September/02/2016 at 1:52pm
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 734
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/02/2016 at 11:23pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

The superstitious ancient Egyptians took a multi-aspect 'gestalt' view of the human soul, that it was divided into five or more parts, with the 'ka' being equivalent to a 'spirit'...
...So One Part Soul - the other (spirit?) helps manifest it - is a view held by the superstitious ancient Egyptians, Theosophers, Kabbalists, Frankists, and others.  But not contemporary theologians.  Interesting.


What is interesting to me is how you recognize others beliefs and religions as superstitious, but not your own.  VERY interesting indeed.  Wacko


I don't know if you missed this, or simply chose to ignore it, but I wonder if you might elaborate a little on your statements? How is it that you can regard the people and groups you listed above as superstitious for their religious beliefs and not regard all other religious beliefs in kind. Yours included of course. I'm sorry, but I can't board that train of thought...
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2016 at 9:32am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Could somebody adept at syllogisms help me out here? This is an interesting paradox.


[QUOTE=coach]Creating syllogisms with undefined terms is analogous to trying to fertilize your spouse by spilling your seed everywhere but where it counts most. You might enjoy it, but all it does is make a mess without producing any significant results.


Coach,

You finally provided an excellent definition in one of your above posts which I used as a major and minor premise in a syllogism. Now you are defining mental masturbation after you make a working definition of soul?
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
coach View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: October/23/2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2016 at 9:53am
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Could somebody adept at syllogisms help me out here? This is an interesting paradox.
Creating syllogisms with undefined terms is analogous to trying to fertilize your spouse by spilling your seed everywhere but where it counts most. You might enjoy it, but all it does is make a mess without producing any significant results.
Coach,

You finally provided an excellent definition in one of your above posts which I used as a major and minor premise in a syllogism. Now you are defining mental masturbation after you make a working definition of soul?

God, forgive me for trying to respond to what misleadingly appeared to be a legitimate appeal for help. I shall do better next time.
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

Books I Wrote | My FB Wall
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2016 at 9:56am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

The superstitious ancient Egyptians took a multi-aspect 'gestalt' view of the human soul, that it was divided into five or more parts, with the 'ka' being equivalent to a 'spirit'...
...So One Part Soul - the other (spirit?) helps manifest it - is a view held by the superstitious ancient Egyptians, Theosophers, Kabbalists, Frankists, and others.  But not contemporary theologians.  Interesting.


[QUOTE=Adept?]What is interesting to me is how you recognize others beliefs and religions as superstitious, but not your own.  VERY interesting indeed.  Wacko


Hi Adept?,

That is both unfair and inaccurate as I have never said nor written that all other belief systems or religions were superstitious. I never wrote anywhere that Zorostrianism or Taoism or Buddhism or Protestantism or Satanism or Wicca or Islam ..... etc....'ad infititum' were superstitions. Protestantism may be heretical, but not a superstition. Christianity in general is not a superstition.

But Egyptologists, archeologists, and physical anthropologists have all written books on the many superstitions of the ancient Egyptians, not only on their religion but also their superstitions: the ancient Egyptians had many good luck charms, avoidance behavior against bad luck (don't walk under ladders, avoid black cats type of things), verbal and physical 'whammy's' against their enemies, charms for health, they feared haunted houses and ghosts, etc... - all separate from their religion.

It goes without saying that the ancient Egyptians were a superstitious bunch (as are the Japanese)and I take it for granted that participants on mastermason.com forums are already aware of this.   

[QUOTE=Adept?]I don't know if you missed this, or simply chose to ignore it, but I wonder if you might elaborate a little on your statements? How is it that you can regard the people and groups you listed above as superstitious for their religious beliefs and not regard all other religious beliefs in kind. Yours included of course. I'm sorry, but I can't board that train of thought...


Again, I do not know what is your level of education, but I always write to people as if they are college graduate level or above. Every college graduate (coach included I think) has a commonality of knowledge of history, math, philosophy, English grammar & syntax (not semantics), logic & rhetoric that are called the 'requirements' of the degree before you focus on your major or specialty. So I find it awkward to make a salient point only to have to spend the next dozen or so posts explaining basic grammar or history or logic; or have my well written explanation totally misinterpreted either through accident or design.

As I just explained I never have said any religion was a superstition. In fact we were taught in college that superstition and religion are two separate things and have nothing to do with each other. The History of Religion, Comparative Religions, and the Philosophy of Religion also separate superstition from theology, but not the Freemasons????? IF that is true, THEN the Masons are only going to marginalize themselves from mainstream accepted and proven thought.

I hope this explanation suffices.
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2016 at 9:59am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

God, forgive me for trying to respond to what misleadingly appeared to be a legitimate appeal for help.


You misinterpret quite a bit. Learning disability?

Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
GrimoireA3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May/05/2013
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GrimoireA3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/03/2016 at 10:17am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

One of the problems I am having with my Roman Catholic faith is the lack of a definitive description of what the soul is.  Other religions have the same problem with soul description.  I cannot accept that there is no soul, yet I cannot define it either.


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

You would have had a lot more success with this thread had simply stated this up front rather than contributing to the ongoing circle jerking and coming across like an evasive troll.


WOW, pot calling the kettle black here. You have a lot of denial & projection problems in all your poor analysis of posts. Personality flaw maybe? Do you have a learning disability?

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

If you want a definition, I recommend that you stop thinking of soul as a "thing", like most everyone assumes.


Amazing! - you are finally addressing the topic question being asked instead of trying to insert your own question and hijack the thread.

"Stop thinking of soul as a 'thing' - is great!

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Start understanding that soul is a characteristic indicative of synergy. Soul appears only when synergy occurs; and disappears when synergy stops. Soul also produces a track record when the characteristic appears.


I read this in the ZOHAR (book of Jewish Kabbalah).

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

If you are a bible believer or even someone who looks to the bible for clues, your first clue to what I am referring to can be found in Genesis 2:7:

And Hashem Elohim formed the adam of the aphar min haadamah, and breathed into his nostrils the nishmat chayyim; and the adam became a nefesh chayyah.

(And the LORD God formed the man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.)


This is straight out of the Orthodox Jewish Bible - why didn't you quote from the Masonic Bible (King James text)? Both curious and interesting.

[QUOTE=coach]Soul is revealed through some or all of the following characteristics:
1) Animation
2) Thought
3) Awareness
4) Understanding
------ (starting to get also into spirit here) ------
5) Perception
6) Insight
7) Emotion

Have at it...


No problem. All too familiar if you ever read the history of the kabbalah or Sabbatai Tsevi or Jacob Franks or of Crypto Jews or of the Young Turks or of the Donmeh in Turkey.

Those following characteristics are the Jewish interpretation of the Soul! Not original thinking on your part, but good research on an already existing orthodox 'religious' Jewish theology.

Coach, does your doctorate in Theology teach this view on the soul, or are you just convinced of the soul concept as found in Judaism?


      
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.