Print Page | Close Window

Define SOUL? Do only humans have one?

Printed From: Mastermason.com Forums
Category: Forum Lounge (off-topic & lighter discussions)
Forum Name: General Discussions
Forum Description: Non-Esoteric Masonic Discussions
URL: http://forum.mastermason.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12609
Printed Date: October/19/2018 at 3:34am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Define SOUL? Do only humans have one?
Posted By: GrimoireA3
Subject: Define SOUL? Do only humans have one?
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 10:07am
What is the Soul? How does one define it? How do you prove there is or is not a Soul? And do only humans have a soul?? Thanks!

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!



Replies:
Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 12:37pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

What is the Soul? How does one define it? How do you prove there is or is not a Soul? And do only humans have a soul?? Thanks!

What is a soul? It is something that one can sell and for an extremely undervalued price. What's more, it is done moment to moment by far too many.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 2:44pm
The soul, like gods, and religion in general; is an invention of the human mind.  Humans have a well documented propensity toward wishful thinking.

-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 4:18pm
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.

The same thing can be said of "reality" and "the mind".

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 6:06pm
Touche Coach, indeed it can...LOL!  Our brains are powerful organs.

-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: pointwithinacircle
Date Posted: August/13/2016 at 10:46pm
My best guess is that the names soul and spirit are symbols for the two great aspects of the human psyche.  


-------------
Words are symbols which point toward concepts arranged in patterns to communicate meaning.


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/14/2016 at 6:05am
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.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: August/14/2016 at 4:05pm
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.


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/14/2016 at 5:44pm
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.

It may be that, sans a working definition, it's still an ambiguous question.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: August/14/2016 at 7:14pm
Agreed. My post was based on my definition of "soul" which may or not be the same as others.


Posted By: BroScubaSteve
Date Posted: August/15/2016 at 1:43pm
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.


-------------
Initiated 4-22-13
Passed 5-29-13
Raised 6-27-13

Junior Deacon
F&AM GLNJ
32°AASR NMJ, Southern Valley of NJ


Posted By: pointwithinacircle
Date Posted: August/16/2016 at 9:00pm
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Agreed. My post was based on my definition of "soul" which may or not be the same as others.
If two people do not share a common definition of the words they are using then they are not really having a conversation since they are not talking about the same thing. 


-------------
Words are symbols which point toward concepts arranged in patterns to communicate meaning.


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 11:30am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

What is the Soul? How does one define it? How do you prove there is or is not a Soul? And do only humans have a soul?? Thanks!

What is a soul? It is something that one can sell and for an extremely undervalued price. What's more, it is done moment to moment by far too many.


Yes, it is done by actors and actresses in Hollyweird on a daily bases.

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 11:34am
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.


So the soul, like other abstractions, is simply the invention of the human mind?

Abstractions such as fear, love, courage, and hate don't exist - of course there is no hate in the world since hate is an invention of the human mind?

Other inventions of the human mind: Tubal cain, Solomon, Hiram abif, the Great Architect of the Universe, the transmigration of souls, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, and/or Jesus are all abstractions and not real - just inventions of the human mind/abstractions?

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 11:38am
Originally posted by pointwithinacircle pointwithinacircle wrote:


Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Agreed. My post was based on my definition of "soul" which may or not be the same as others.
If two people do not share a common definition of the words they are using then they are not really having a conversation since they are not talking about the same thing. 


And as any English major or History major or Linguistics major will tell you at any University - definitions are so very important. No one can communicate unless they understand definitions.

Smart people talk about people; smarter people talk about things; the smartest people talk about concepts - and defining concepts to make them understandable is what the bulk of a university education consists.

-
-
-
SO YES YOU CAN DEFINE SOMETHING WITHOUT PROVING IT EXISTS!

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 11:41am
Originally posted by coach coach 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.

The same thing can be said of "reality" and "the mind".


Or numbers! Numbers (0,1,2,3, .... ad infitititum) are abstractions and do not exist in reality. But we define them nevertheless. How is that??

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 11:50am
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.


Coach,

Just to let you know (in case you don't already) the body (soma) & soul (psyche) - the 'Dichotomic' view of man - is the accepted essence of mankind by scholars. Now how soma and psyche interact is another can of worms.

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:


Other inventions of the human mind: Tubal cain, Solomon, Hiram abif, the Great Architect of the Universe, the transmigration of souls, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, and/or Jesus are all abstractions and not real - just inventions of the human mind/abstractions?


Indeed, the entire list you made above is 100% fictitious


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

What is the Soul? How does one define it? How do you prove there is or is not a Soul? And do only humans have a soul?? Thanks!

What is a soul? It is something that one can sell and for an extremely undervalued price. What's more, it is done moment to moment by far too many.


Yes, it is done by actors and actresses in Hollyweird on a daily bases.

And by a host of others in every walk of life, including our secular buddies who tell us not to sell it.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by pointwithinacircle pointwithinacircle wrote:


Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Agreed. My post was based on my definition of "soul" which may or not be the same as others.
If two people do not share a common definition of the words they are using then they are not really having a conversation since they are not talking about the same thing. 
AGREED!

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 5:06pm
Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach 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.

The same thing can be said of "reality" and "the mind".


Or numbers! Numbers (0,1,2,3, .... ad infitititum) are abstractions and do not exist in reality. But we define them nevertheless. How is that??

Or words. That's how inventions work. They are tools for manipulative use.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 5:13pm
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.


Coach,

Just to let you know (in case you don't already) the body (soma) & soul (psyche) - the 'Dichotomic' view of man - is the accepted essence of mankind by scholars. Now how soma and psyche interact is another can of worms.

Yes, especially when you have a two fold view of a three fold being. Just to let you know (in case you don't already) the body (soma) & soul (psyche) -- the 'Dichotomic' view of man -- is a view which I do not buy into.

When you leave out "spirit" all bets are off since you leave out the very aspect that animates. You can't have a soul without spirit. Puny Scholars be damned.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 5:15pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by GrimoireA3 GrimoireA3 wrote:


Other inventions of the human mind: Tubal cain, Solomon, Hiram abif, the Great Architect of the Universe, the transmigration of souls, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, and/or Jesus are all abstractions and not real - just inventions of the human mind/abstractions?



Indeed, the entire list you made above is 100% fictitious

100% Fictitious?

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/17/2016 at 7:24pm
While there may have been people around the implied time period with those names, the claims made and attributed to those individuals are fictitious. The bible, in its entirety; is man made superstitious, and fictitious nonsense.  It's a story book, and a bad one, nothing more.  So yes, 100% fictitious.  I suppose I could attempt some humility and call it my opinion, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for any religion current or past.  The religions of today, are the mythologies of tomorrow.  I long for tomorrow.  

On a side note, I read a recent poll that stated all religion is on the steady decline, and atheism/agnosticism and otherwise non-religious are on the rise.  Up to 23-25% in the U.S. by some polls.   It is slow, and long overdue progress, but progress none the less.  I'll take it.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 4:34am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

While there may have been people around the implied time period with those names, the claims made and attributed to those individuals are fictitious. The bible, in its entirety; is man made superstitious, and fictitious nonsense.  It's a story book, and a bad one, nothing more.  So yes, 100% fictitious.  I suppose I could attempt some humility and call it my opinion, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for any religion current or past.  The religions of today, are the mythologies of tomorrow.  I long for tomorrow.  

On a side note, I read a recent poll that stated all religion is on the steady decline, and atheism/agnosticism and otherwise non-religious are on the rise.  Up to 23-25% in the U.S. by some polls.   It is slow, and long overdue progress, but progress none the less.  I'll take it.  

So, you've gone from "100% fictitious" to "superstitious, and fictitious nonsense".

Adept, in your fury, you have mischaracterized a collection of books intended to provide wisdom for those capable of gleaning it, and done so with improper diligence. The collection provides for the level it can be understood.

For you, it provides a target of ridicule. For others an instruction manual from making better choices and decisions. For some, entertaining and thought-provoking stories. Some others, moral guidance. There are some who take it literally, others who take parts of it literally, others who take it totally figuratively.

To label it as you have speaks more of your mindset and heart than all those you condemn through your words.

You might want to step back and look at the huge anger you harbor and how it is affecting your judgment and actions.

It is clear from your words that you have issues that have yet to settle down to a civil, understanding and considerate level.

I shall leave you with this thought, taken directly from that book of nonsense, with hope that the words may sink in and help you see things differently even in the slightest and perhaps temper the imbalance that lives within you: It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: log cabin Bill
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 6:28am
Coach:  Your most recent post is very well worded indeed.  Well said, my brother.

-------------
North Hills Lodge, #716,PM
Allegheny RAM,#217,PHP
Allegheny Council,#38,PTIM
Allegheny Commandery #35
Knight Masons,Gateway To The West Council #5
AASR,Valley of Pgh.
Syria Shrine
Islam Grotto


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 7:57am
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:


For you, it provides a target of ridicule. For others an instruction manual from making better choices and decisions. For some, entertaining and thought-provoking stories. Some others, moral guidance. There are some who take it literally, others who take parts of it literally, others who take it totally figuratively.

To label it as you have speaks more of your mindset and heart than all those you condemn through your words.

I'll begin by admitting the obvious.  I do condemn the bible as immoral fictitious nonsense.  It is Christianities "sacred" text.  My contempt of it is based on what it says, and what it teaches, not my interpretation of it.  People ignorantly and gleefully go to it daily for moral guidance.  Ask yourself... if god wanted to guide humanity with a book.. why give us a book that condones slavery?  Why give us a book that states that we can beat our slaves, so long as they do not die immediately, or so severely that we put out their eyes or teeth.  A book that states that the willingness to commit human sacrifice of your own son was a noble and honorable deed (because god told him to do it)  To stone a woman to DEATH on her fathers doorstep if she not be a virgin on her wedding night.  To set a price for, and sell our daughters into servitude to another man.  To kill entire tribes because they don't believe what you do.. down to the last one... children included, keeping only the virgins.  (I'm sure they wanted them for purely moral purposes.)  A book that goes on to state that anyone who does not believe in the gospel of Jesus is cast forth as a branch and withers, and the branches are gathered up and burned.  A book that people use to teach (and in my view torment, and mentally abuse) young children.  Far to young to make rational and logically decisions.  To terrify them with the idea of hell, and that that is where they, and all that they love, family and friends alike, will be sent to upon their death to be tortured and tormented forever and ever if they do not accept Jesus.  Vicarious redemption... another sickly element of the book. Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice that celebrates a single human sacrifice as if it were effective.  A book that says our sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person.  A positively immoral doctrine.  But perhaps worst of all, a book that considers women an inferior creation.  That a woman is bound to server her father until such a time that she is sold to another, or married to another, at which time she continues her servitude to that man.  

    Now, It could easily be said that I'm "cherry picking" the bad bits of the book.  One can not deny that what I have stated comes directly from that positively immoral book.  Some people choose to ignore these, and other "bad parts" of the text, and choose to do a bit of cherry picking of their own.  If you're going to throw out and disregard the many many terrible bad, and immoral things that the book says, then why not just throw the whole thing out and live your life by a secular law of the golden rule.  Treat others as you would like to be treated.  What more do we need?  Christians love the story Jesus tells about the man from Sumeria.  Forgetting a couple of key things about the story.  Jesus is telling a story about someone he encountered, or someone he heard about.  The man could not have been a christian, since the religion and its dogma did not yet exist.  The "good Sumeritan" took the action that he did for no more reason that basic human solidarity, and a desire to help a fellow human being in need.  Again, what other reason should we need?  Humans by nature have a desire (often for their own well being) to be of help, and service to others.  Basic human decency is innate in us.  It does not come from god or religion.  

    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.  Is this moral teaching?  I say it is not only immoral, but evil.  9 million children die every year before they reach the age of 5.  24 thousand children a day,.. or a thousand an hour.  Think of these children... think of the parents, families, and friends of these children.  Many of them praying daily for them to be spared, and yet their prayers will not be answered.  According to Christianity (and other religions) this is all part of gods divine plan.  (some plan, huh?)  Any god who would allow millions of children to suffer and die, and their families and friends to grieve in this way, can either do nothing to help them, or doesn't care to.  He is therefor impotent or evil.  So god created the cultural isolation of the Hindus in ignorance of revelation, and then created the penalty for that ignorance, which is an eternity in the lake of fire.  On the other hand, by the christian belief, the average psychopath, or serial killer on death row need only come to Jesus in his last moments on earth, and after a final meal and his execution, he gets to spend eternity in heaven because he asked for Jesus to forgive his sins.  Again I ask, is this moral teaching?  I maintain that it is not only immoral, but intrinsically EVIL teaching.  To think and believe in this way is to fail to reason honestly, or care sufficiently about the suffering of other human beings.  These beliefs are obscene, and contemptible.

   Religion allows otherwise good, decent, and sane people to believe by the billions, what only a lunatic could believe on their own.  If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and believe that by saying a few Latin words over your pancakes, it would turn them into the body of Elvis Presley... You have lost your mind.  But if you believe the same thing about a cracker, and the body of Jesus.. you're just a catholic.
I can't imagine that I'm the first person to come to the conclusion that it is a strange sort of "loving god" that would make salvation depend on a belief in him with very bad, to no evidence at all for his existence.  

    This doctrine follows along with a contemptible history of scientific ignorance, and religious barbarism.  We come from people who used to bury children alive in post holes of buildings as offerings to their imaginary gods to protect their structures and buildings from being destroyed by natural forces such as weather, earthquake, or fire.  Forces which they didn't even understand, and used individual gods to fill in for what they lacked in knowledge and understanding.  These are the sorts of people who wrote the bible and other religious texts.  Absolutely ignorant people.  In the natural world, good people will do the best that they can.  Evil people will do the worst that they can.  If you want to make good people do evil things, you need only a little religion.  Specifically two peoples with different and incompatible religions.  If there is a less moral, moral framework than the one presented by Christianity, or any other silly and ignorant religion,... I haven't heard of it.  You do NOT need any religion at all, to be a moral and decent human being.  

    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.  Recent polls in the United States suggest that around 23 percent of the population is atheist, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious.  They also suggest that all religions are on a steady decline. (I am thankful for that progress, slow as it may be, and long overdue; it is progress none the less.)  As wonderful as this is, it also points out the very disturbing fact that roughly 77 percent of the population of the U.S. still believe in some form of superstition and mythology commonly known as religion.

            Religion, it must be said; makes extraordinary claims, without providing even ordinary evidence for these claims.  To quote Carl Sagan “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”  Happily, there is no evidence for the claims, or validity of any of the religions of the world.  To insist that we are created and not evolved, in the face of all the evidence; is to fail to reason honestly or logically.  Religious belief is the willful suspension of your critical faculties.  Faith, by its very definition; is a belief in something without evidence. 

It is obvious that all religion is of human origin.  The number of available religions to choose from is proof enough of that.  There is nothing special or divine about any of them.  They all claim to be the correct religion, and at most only one can be.  Wouldn’t it be more logical and reasonable to assume that if all other religions of the world are wrong, that whatever one you choose to believe in is also wrong?  What are the odds that everyone that does not believe what you do is wrong, and you are right?  Knowing all the while that they believe the same of their own chosen beliefs and that you are the one who is wrong.  How can a thinking person not see the ridiculousness of this?

    


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 8:39am
As soon as I finished typing the above and posted it, I clicked over to my local news outlet only to find this.

http://wabi.tv/2016/08/18/notes-threatening-muslims-found-at-westbrook-apartment-complex/" rel="nofollow - http://wabi.tv/2016/08/18/notes-threatening-muslims-found-at-westbrook-apartment-complex/

As if we needed more evidence of religious violence.  




-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 8:39am
Adept, I get the impression that you feel that religion is the source of evil in the world, or at least a major source. You also seem to acknowledge that there is good in the world. What then is the source of this "good"? I am guessing that you might say that it has been implanted in the human mind, or something to that effect. If that be your answer, how did it get implanted there?





Posted By: scout
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 8:46am
Adept? Are you not a Mason?


Posted By: ga.mason
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 8:54am
He was to some degree. Now he's just a bitter little man who likes to tell everyone else how stupid we are for our beliefs. I find it quite amusing to read his rants.

-------------
Snellville Lodge#99

Snellville,Georgia

Past Master 2011

2009 Mason of the Year (Snellville #99)

2011 Lodge of the Year (9th District)

DDGM Ninth District, Subdistrict F 2014


Posted By: scout
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 8:57am
I don't belittle anyone for their beliefs but I am cognizant of our ancient landmarks.


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:04am
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Adept, I get the impression that you feel that religion is the source of evil in the world, or at least a major source. You also seem to acknowledge that there is good in the world. What then is the source of this "good"? I am guessing that you might say that it has been implanted in the human mind, or something to that effect. If that be your answer, how did it get implanted there?


Indeed, religion is the source of a great deal of evil in the world, both currently, and throughout history.  Not all, but a lot, and humanity would be far better off without it.  Human beings have evolved to live together in societies, and to be of help and use to one another.  We are decent and good individuals by nature, and not by creation.  Indeed we are half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee, with whom we share 98% of our DNA.  (that is scientific fact, as is evolution itself, whether you believe it or not.)  We are merely just another mammalian species of primate on the ladder of evolution.  

        While there are evil people, they are entirely mentally ill individuals, who are in some way defective... literally.  As with people that are born every day with physical, and/or mental birth defects.  They are glitches, or perhaps in some cases of superior intelligence, advances in natural human evolution.  On the other hand if we assume the belief of a creationist god, these evil, mentally ill, physically/mentally deformed individuals are created and made this way by god.  For what purpose?  Why would a loving caring creator, with a supposed divine plan create inferior and evil human beings?

    On the subject of divine plan, it is suggested that god is omniscient and omnipotent.  How could he be both?  If he knows all, past, present, and future, then he can't be all powerful at the same time.  You can not simultaneously know what the future of your creation holds, and also have the power to change it arbitrarily. 


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:07am
Originally posted by scout scout wrote:

Adept? Are you not a Mason?

I am a twice demitted "reformed" Freemason.  I am a Freemason in that I joined, and was once an active member in the fraternity.  I am no longer active in the fraternity.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: Sec'yBob
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:12am
I would like to respond to Adept

First and foremost, I am a staunch Christian and a Mason

He states "to state that we are created not evolved in the face of all the evidence is to fail to reason honestly or logically"
While I would/could take to task a great deal of what he said above, this is the one I choose to "fight" right now.



Scientists say we evolved .  Great show me.  They have been finding skeletal remains for years with no evidence.  They used to say we evolved form dolphins who came out of the water and evolved.  Great, show me a skeleton of a dolphin with hands and feet [or even part of such].  They talk about animals who used to walk on land and now swim.  They talk of animals that used to swim and now walk.  Show me the remains of such animals, their skeletons will bear this out.  OOPS, you can't find one!!!!

Scientists say we evolved because they do not believe in God.  These two principals are fundamentally opposed.  Scientists try as they may, are looking for a way to prove that the parting of the waters did happen, scientifically.  Several theories exist, none make much sense.

They are trying to find a way to prove it rained for 40 days and nights.  The fact that they acknowledge it happened at all is strange when they try to scientifically prove it happened because of the stars aligned right, or comets that struck the earth.
 and lastly, what has this to do with SOUL, did we get off track.?



-------------
Raised 2001
PM Crestwood-Anchor #443
PM Meramec #313
Past DDGM
Lodge Education Officer
Missouri Lodge of Research
O.E.S. Chapter 129


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:25am
Originally posted by ga.mason ga.mason wrote:

He was to some degree. Now he's just a bitter little man who likes to tell everyone else how stupid we are for our beliefs. I find it quite amusing to read his rants.

The comments and assumptions of a man without a rational intellectual rebuttal to my post perhaps?  I don't appreciate the personal insults.

    Please know that I am not telling anyone that they are stupid.  I do not ridicule the individual.  I ridicule the beliefs and ideas only.  I have religious people in my family, as neighbors, co-workers, and friends and fraternal brothers.  I don't regard the individual with contempt, only the beliefs they may hold.  Most of them are well aware of my stance on the subject, and leave me be, and I them.  However, whenever they bring their personal beliefs into a subject of conversation, they can expect to be questioned, and made to defend what they claim to believe in.  People as individuals should not be subjected to ridicule.  Beliefs and ideas however, especially when those beliefs or ideas are completely false, immoral, and ridiculous, should expect ridicule.

I love it when the door knockers come to my house to proselytize.  I don't ask them to leave... on the contrary, I invite them in to chat.  They usually leave on their own.. and after a short stay.  They are (not surprisingly) less than receptive to my questioning nature.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:44am
Originally posted by Sec'yBob Sec'yBob wrote:

I would like to respond to Adept

First and foremost, I am a staunch Christian and a Mason

He states "to state that we are created not evolved in the face of all the evidence is to fail to reason honestly or logically"
While I would/could take to task a great deal of what he said above, this is the one I choose to "fight" right now.



Scientists say we evolved .  Great show me.  They have been finding skeletal remains for years with no evidence.  They used to say we evolved form dolphins who came out of the water and evolved.  Great, show me a skeleton of a dolphin with hands and feet [or even part of such].  They talk about animals who used to walk on land and now swim.  They talk of animals that used to swim and now walk.  Show me the remains of such animals, their skeletons will bear this out.  OOPS, you can't find one!!!!

Scientists say we evolved because they do not believe in God.  These two principals are fundamentally opposed.  Scientists try as they may, are looking for a way to prove that the parting of the waters did happen, scientifically.  Several theories exist, none make much sense.

They are trying to find a way to prove it rained for 40 days and nights.  The fact that they acknowledge it happened at all is strange when they try to scientifically prove it happened because of the stars aligned right, or comets that struck the earth.
 and lastly, what has this to do with SOUL, did we get off track.?



Evolution doesn't work that way my friend.  You will not find "mutant" fossil remains.  Evolution of life on this planet has taken place over millions of years.  (a time frame most christians don't even believe exists, but that's a subject for another time I suppose)  Evolution, as I stated above in another post is a scientific FACT.  It has been conclusively PROVEN to have happened, and still be happening now.  Believe it.. don't believe it.. whatever.  The cool thing about science is that it works, and can be proven, whether you choose to believe it or not.  You can ridicule science and scientist all you like, but we both know that if you were to get seriously ill, you would not go to a church seeking treatment.  You would go to a hospital and consult with trained scientists, nurses, lab techs, doctors and so on.  Why is that I wonder?
Although I have heard of "true believers" that would not do that, and would indeed only pray for help.  Those people will not continue to exist, I promise you.  

In closing, yes, we are waaaay off topic now, and that is mostly my fault.  Although I'm pretty sure my posts have mostly been in response to others claims or statements in their posts.  It was not my intention to divert the entire thread.  Though I must admit that I do enjoy spreading knowledge, and hopefully causing some readers of my posts to at least objectively consider what I'm saying.  I believe that the sooner we as society and humanity throw off superstitious, infantile, religious belief, the sooner our species will begin to rise to its full potential, and take another necessary step in our evolutionary existence.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Indeed, religion is the source of a great deal of evil in the world, both currently, and throughout history.  

Your's is a jaded view. It has been the source of far more good then the evil you cite.

Quote Not all, but a lot, and humanity would be far better off without it.  

Opinion.

Quote  Indeed we are half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee, with whom we share 98% of our DNA.  (that is scientific fact, as is evolution itself, whether you believe it or not.)


Actually, one of our chromosomes has merged and were there were once two, there is but one. This merger prevents us from having viable offspring with other apes.

Quote On the other hand if we assume the belief of a creationist god, these evil, mentally ill, physically/mentally deformed individuals are created and made this way by god.  For what purpose?  Why would a loving caring creator, with a supposed divine plan create inferior and evil human beings?

You once again assume all readers and believers take the book literally. Many do not.


-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Sec'yBob Sec'yBob wrote:

... They used to say we evolved form dolphins who came out of the water and evolved. 

I don't believe they used to say this. If anything, dolphins were land mammals that went back into the sea. Much like they are finding through genetics that whales are related to hippos.

Just a side comment: Evolution is God's way of separating those who think from those who merely ape thought.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 11:15am
Maybe we are off topic but my question to Adept I believe is related and important to the topic, as are all the other similar posts.

Adept, I asked you more or less if evil comes from religion, where then does good come from, what is its source. Your answer was humans are good and decent by nature. That does not answer the question. You seem to have an answer for the source of evil, but not the source of good. My point here is not to trip you up but in your rants about religion to point out that you only want to see one side of the equation. I think you need to do much reflecting about the other side.


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by droche droche wrote:

Maybe we are off topic but my question to Adept I believe is related and important to the topic, as are all the other similar posts.

Adept, I asked you more or less if evil comes from religion, where then does good come from, what is its source. Your answer was humans are good and decent by nature. That does not answer the question. You seem to have an answer for the source of evil, but not the source of good. My point here is not to trip you up but in your rants about religion to point out that you only want to see one side of the equation. I think you need to do much reflecting about the other side.

I reflected for the majority of my life from the other side.  I was raised christian and maintained a belief in a personal god up until just about 7 or 8 years ago, at which time I became more a skeptic, and a deist at best, to now, where I am a militant atheist.  Religion is not the source of ALL evil, but it is certainly the source of quite a LOT of evil in the world throughout history, up to and including current events.  As far as where "good" comes from.  I have given my answer.  It is innate it us.  That is my answer.  I have no want or need of any supernatural "cause" of good or evil.  That is largely a religious held need, that I do not have.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:


For you, it provides a target of ridicule. For others an instruction manual from making better choices and decisions. For some, entertaining and thought-provoking stories. Some others, moral guidance. There are some who take it literally, others who take parts of it literally, others who take it totally figuratively.

To label it as you have speaks more of your mindset and heart than all those you condemn through your words.

I'll begin by admitting the obvious.  I do condemn the bible as immoral fictitious nonsense.  It is Christianities "sacred" text.  My contempt of it is based on what it says, and what it teaches, not my interpretation of it.  People ignorantly and gleefully go to it daily for moral guidance.  Ask yourself... if god wanted to guide humanity with a book.. why give us a book that condones slavery?  Why give us a book that states that we can beat our slaves, so long as they do not die immediately, or so severely that we put out their eyes or teeth.  A book that states that the willingness to commit human sacrifice of your own son was a noble and honorable deed (because god told him to do it)  To stone a woman to DEATH on her fathers doorstep if she not be a virgin on her wedding night.  To set a price for, and sell our daughters into servitude to another man.  To kill entire tribes because they don't believe what you do.. down to the last one... children included, keeping only the virgins.  (I'm sure they wanted them for purely moral purposes.)  A book that goes on to state that anyone who does not believe in the gospel of Jesus is cast forth as a branch and withers, and the branches are gathered up and burned.  A book that people use to teach (and in my view torment, and mentally abuse) young children.  Far to young to make rational and logically decisions.  To terrify them with the idea of hell, and that that is where they, and all that they love, family and friends alike, will be sent to upon their death to be tortured and tormented forever and ever if they do not accept Jesus.  Vicarious redemption... another sickly element of the book. <span style="line-height: 16.8px;">Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice</span> that celebrates a single human sacrifice as if it were effective.  A book that says our sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person.  A positively immoral doctrine.  But perhaps worst of all, a book that considers women an inferior creation.  That a woman is bound to server her father until such a time that she is sold to another, or married to another, at which time she continues her servitude to that man.  

    Now, It could easily be said that I'm "cherry picking" the bad bits of the book.  One can not deny that what I have stated comes directly from that positively immoral book.  Some people choose to ignore these, and other "bad parts" of the text, and choose to do a bit of cherry picking of their own.  If you're going to throw out and disregard the many many terrible bad, and immoral things that the book says, then why not just throw the whole thing out and live your life by a secular law of the golden rule.  Treat others as you would like to be treated.  What more do we need?  Christians love the story Jesus tells about the man from Sumeria.  Forgetting a couple of key things about the story.  Jesus is telling a story about someone he encountered, or someone he heard about.  The man could not have been a christian, since the religion and its dogma did not yet exist.  The "good Sumeritan" took the action that he did for no more reason that basic human solidarity, and a desire to help a fellow human being in need.  Again, what other reason should we need?  Humans by nature have a desire (often for their own well being) to be of help, and service to others.  Basic human decency is innate in us.  It does not come from god or religion.  

    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.  Is this moral teaching?  I say it is not only immoral, but evil.  9 million children die every year before they reach the age of 5.  24 thousand children a day,.. or a thousand an hour.  Think of these children... think of the parents, families, and friends of these children.  Many of them praying daily for them to be spared, and yet their prayers will not be answered.  According to Christianity (and other religions) this is all part of gods divine plan.  (some plan, huh?)  Any god who would allow millions of children to suffer and die, and their families and friends to grieve in this way, can either do nothing to help them, or doesn't care to.  He is therefor impotent or evil.  So god created the cultural isolation of the Hindus in ignorance of revelation, and then created the penalty for that ignorance, which is an eternity in the lake of fire.  On the other hand, by the christian belief, the average psychopath, or serial killer on death row need only come to Jesus in his last moments on earth, and after a final meal and his execution, he gets to spend eternity in heaven because he asked for Jesus to forgive his sins.  Again I ask, is this moral teaching?  I maintain that it is not only immoral, but intrinsically EVIL teaching.  To think and believe in this way is to fail to reason honestly, or care sufficiently about the suffering of other human beings.  These beliefs are obscene, and contemptible.

   Religion allows otherwise good, decent, and sane people to believe by the billions, what only a lunatic could believe on their own.  If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and believe that by saying a few Latin words over your pancakes, it would turn them into the body of Elvis Presley... You have lost your mind.  But if you believe the same thing about a cracker, and the body of Jesus.. you're just a catholic.
I can't imagine that I'm the first person to come to the conclusion that it is a strange sort of "loving god" that would make salvation depend on a belief in him with very bad, to no evidence at all for his existence.  

    This doctrine follows along with a contemptible history of scientific ignorance, and religious barbarism.  We come from people who used to bury children alive in post holes of buildings as offerings to their imaginary gods to protect their structures and buildings from being destroyed by natural forces such as weather, earthquake, or fire.  Forces which they didn't even understand, and used individual gods to fill in for what they lacked in knowledge and understanding.  These are the sorts of people who wrote the bible and other religious texts.  Absolutely ignorant people.  In the natural world, good people will do the best that they can.  Evil people will do the worst that they can.  If you want to make good people do evil things, you need only a little religion.  Specifically two peoples with different and incompatible religions.  If there is a less moral, moral framework than the one presented by Christianity, or any other silly and ignorant religion,... I haven't heard of it.  You do NOT need any religion at all, to be a moral and decent human being.  

    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.  <span style="line-height: 115%;">Recent polls
in the United States suggest that around 23 percent of the population is
atheist, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious.</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> 
</span><span style="line-height: 115%;">They also suggest that all religions are on a steady decline. (I am
thankful for that progress, slow as it may be, and long overdue; it is progress
none the less.)</span><span style="line-height: 115%;">  </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">As wonderful as this is,
it also points out the very disturbing fact that roughly 77 percent of the
population of the U.S. still believe in some form of superstition and mythology
commonly known as religion.</span>


<p ="msonormal"=""><span style="line-height: 115%;">            Religion, it must be said; makes
extraordinary claims, without providing even ordinary evidence for these
claims.  To quote Carl Sagan
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”  Happily, there is no evidence for the claims,
or validity of any of the religions of the world.  To insist that we are created and not
evolved, in the face of all the evidence; is to fail to reason honestly or logically.  Religious belief is the willful suspension of
your critical faculties.  Faith, by its
very definition; is a belief in something without evidence.  <o:p></o:p>
</span>



<p ="msonormal"="" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="line-height: 115%;">It is obvious that all religion is of human origin.  The number of available religions to choose
from is proof enough of that.  There is
nothing special or divine about any of them. 
They all claim to be the correct religion, and at most only one can
be.  Wouldn’t it be more logical and
reasonable to assume that if all other religions of the world are wrong, that
whatever one you choose to believe in is also wrong?  What are the odds that everyone that does not
believe what you do is wrong, and you are right?  Knowing all the while that they believe the
same of their own chosen beliefs and that you are the one who is wrong.  How can a thinking person not see the ridiculousness
of this?
<o:p></o:p></span>

    



Yep, I agree... you certainly are militant. So much so that you fail to see any wisdom being conveyed by any book considered holy.

You may be lucky enough to some day realize that your anger is misplaced, your actions are ego-centric and there's much that you have missed in your efforts to throw out the bathwater.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 12:48pm
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Indeed, religion is the source of a great deal of evil in the world, both currently, and throughout history.  

Your's is a jaded view. It has been the source of far more good then the evil you cite.

That is just false.  Do I really need to list them?  Genocide, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, the crusades, the inquisitions, most wars, the molestation, and gentile mutilation of children... shall I go on?  The preaching that AIDS may be bad, but not as bad as condoms.  The hindrance of medical and scientific research and advancements, not only now, but historically, shall I go on?  How about the holocaust, or the events of 9/11, or any of the numerous suicide bombings and be-headings.  Come on Coach.. you know better than to make that statement.  Say nothing of the fact the there is no action of good or charity that a religious believer can say or do, that a non religious person could not also do.  On the other hand, I bet no one would have any difficulty thinking of an evil action (see list above) that are exclusively faith based initiatives.  Say nothing of the fact that any "good" attributed to any religion, does not make it any more true.

 
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

Not all, but a lot, and humanity would be far better off without it.

Opinion.

yes, that is my opinion.  An opinion that I firmly believe is factual, and will be proven to be so (though not likely in my lifetime) if we don't succeed in destroying ourselves beforehand.

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

 Indeed we are half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee, with whom we share 98% of our DNA.  (that is scientific fact, as is evolution itself, whether you believe it or not.)


Actually, one of our chromosomes has merged and were there were once two, there is but one. This merger prevents us from having viable offspring with other apes.

we do not mate with other species.  that is not how evolution works.  I would have thought you knew that.  We share our DNA and a common ancestor with apes.  Richard Dawkins concisely explains this in a very short video.  About 1 min 45 seconds I believe.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE  

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

On the other hand if we assume the belief of a creationist god, these evil, mentally ill, physically/mentally deformed individuals are created and made this way by god.  For what purpose?  Why would a loving caring creator, with a supposed divine plan create inferior and evil human beings?

You once again assume all readers and believers take the book literally. Many do not.

The issue is not with the believers that believe in peace and quiet, and non-violence.  The issue is with the many who DO believe it, and DO take it, to be literal.  There is no disputing this.  Those that believe that the bible, or the koran, or any other text is the literal, and un-erring word of god are delusional and dangerous people to have living in our society.  The punishment for apostasy in the Islamic faith is death.  Who is going to say that this is good for humanity?


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 1:11pm
Originally posted by scout scout wrote:

Adept? Are you not a Mason?



Thank you scout. I was about to ask the same question.

-------------
Please Note: I am not a Mason. And also, I am not an anti-Mason!


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 1:30pm
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:


Yep, I agree... you certainly are militant. So much so that you fail to see any wisdom being conveyed by any book considered holy.

You may be lucky enough to some day realize that your anger is misplaced, your actions are ego-centric and there's much that you have missed in your efforts to throw out the bathwater.

To not have the definition misconstrued or misunderstood.

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.
 
I suppose this should be my final post on the forum.  I don't want to cause any more disharmony among you than I already have.  Indeed that was never my intention.  It seems that there is no polite way to tell someone that you feel that the beliefs that they hold dear, are primitive and ridiculous superstitious nonsense.  Indeed even questioning someones beliefs is enough to send some right over the edge.  
It was stated that I should attempt to see things from the other side... indeed I have, for many years.  I would invite any objectively minded individual to do the same.  Ask yourselves.  Have you ever considered for even a second that you could be wrong?  Have you even considered the fact that your beliefs could be false, or that another set could be right, and you have been leading your life based on the wrong theology?  I would invite you to read the works of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Danial Denett, Sam Harris, and many others.  Short of that, pick up another religious text.. whatever one, it doesn't matter.  Read the Torah, or the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Book of Mormon.  After you read one of the texts from another faith, ask yourself this question.  Are you convinced?  Will you convert your faith?  This is how I feel, and I imagine most atheists feel.  We're not convinced.  I've read your book(s) and they are unconvincing.  There is no evidence.  We are all atheists as it relates to every faith and religion but whatever one you choose to follow and believe.  (or have chosen for you by your parents and your up-bringing in most cases)  We as atheists just choose to go one god further, and believe in no god and no religion at all.  Human beings began their religious journey being poly-theists, having many gods.  Now the majority of the world are mono-theists, having only the one god.  We're getting closer the the true figure all the time.  That's progress.  SmileTongueWink


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 1:48pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Indeed, religion is the source of a great deal of evil in the world, both currently, and throughout history.  

Your's is a jaded view. It has been the source of far more good then the evil you cite.

That is just false.  


Your opinion.
Quote Do I really need to list them?  

No. You do not need to, but if you want to, go ahead...

Quote Genocide, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, the crusades, the inquisitions, most wars, the molestation, and gentile mutilation of children... shall I go on?  


Only if the spirit moves you.

Quote The preaching that AIDS may be bad, but not as bad as condoms.  The hindrance of medical and scientific research and advancements, not only now, but historically, shall I go on?  

only if the spirit continues to move you...
Quote How about the holocaust, or the events of 9/11, or any of the numerous suicide bombings and be-headings.  Come on Coach.. you know better than to make that statement.  


Actually, it was because I know better that I make that statement. You're focusing on the press. The press always accents the negative. It is never a true measure or indicator of reality. But you already know this, or at least, should.

Quote Say nothing of the fact the there is no action of good or charity that a religious believer can say or do, that a non religious person could not also do.  On the other hand, I bet no one would have any difficulty thinking of an evil action (see list above) that are exclusively faith based initiatives.  Say nothing of the fact that any "good" attributed to any religion, does not make it any more true.


or any less false...

Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

</span>Not all, but a lot, and humanity would be far better off without it.

Opinion.

Quote
yes, that is my opinion.  An opinion that I firmly believe is factual, and will be proven to be so (though not likely in my lifetime) if we don't succeed in destroying ourselves beforehand.

So, let me get this straight. It's factual, but has not been proven and may not be proven. Based upon your definition of faith, it sounds like you've chosen to believe something without evidence. Isn't that the basis of a religion? I thought you claimed that you weren't superstitious?
Quote
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Indeed we are half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee, with whom we share 98% of our DNA.  (that is scientific fact, as is evolution itself, whether you believe it or not.)


Actually, one of our chromosomes has merged and were there were once two, there is but one. This merger prevents us from having viable offspring with other apes.

we do not mate with other species.  

Actually, there are people that do, but they have no success since there are no offspring. These acts are considered immoral in most all religions, the nonsense you tell us does no good. The acts are also illegal. Seems some acts can be legislated but not prevented.

Quote that is not how evolution works.  


Did I claim anywhere that evolution worked that way?

Quote I would have thought you knew that.  


While you're playing the dismissive game, let me throw in: I would have thought you would not have jumped to a false conclusion about what I wrote. But since you did, you might want to check out other false conclusions that you've jumped to elsewhere.

Quote We share our DNA and a common ancestor with apes.  Richard Dawkins concisely explains this in a very short video.  About 1 min 45 seconds I believe.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE


I'm sure he does. However, what he has to offer is often as dismissive as what you do and hence I shall go back to that book and stay apart and not dwell with the contentious and angry. 

Quote
Originally posted by coach coach wrote:

Originally posted by adept? adept? wrote:

On the other hand if we assume the belief of a creationist god, these evil, mentally ill, physically/mentally deformed individuals are created and made this way by god.  For what purpose?  Why would a loving caring creator, with a supposed divine plan create inferior and evil human beings?

You once again assume all readers and believers take the book literally. Many do not.


The issue is not with the believers that believe in peace and quiet, and non-violence.  The issue is with the many who DO believe it, and DO take it, to be literal.  There is no disputing this.  Those that believe that the bible, or the koran, or any other text is the literal, and un-erring word of god are delusional and dangerous people to have living in our society.  The punishment for apostasy in the Islamic faith is death.  Who is going to say that this is good for humanity?

So, it is not the religion itself but the insane individuals who bend it to what they want to do anyway. Why then do you attack the faith rather then the distorted thinking that filters it toward warped ends?

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 1:55pm
I don't think you have caused disharmony in the forum. I believe the disharmony is within you. The issue is not your distaste for organized religion- many have that. The issue is your intense anger and hatred toward religion. I have run across many with distaste for organized religion, my father was one but he was otherwise a God-fearing man. I have never met a person with the intense anger and hatred toward it that you have as is so evident by your posts. It's just sad because beliefs are one thing, but the intensity of your anger and hatred are so self-destructive. That's the last I will say about the matter.


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/18/2016 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:


Originally posted by coach coach wrote:


Yep, I agree... you certainly are militant. So much so that you fail to see any wisdom being conveyed by any book considered holy.

You may be lucky enough to some day realize that your anger is misplaced, your actions are ego-centric and there's much that you have missed in your efforts to throw out the bathwater.


To not have the definition misconstrued or misunderstood.

<b style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;">Militant atheism<span style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;"> is a term applied to </span><b style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;">atheism <span style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;">which is hostile towards religion. </span><b style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;">Militant atheists<span style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;"> have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate </span><b style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;">atheists<span style="color: rgb34, 34, 34; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2px;"> because they hold religion to be harmful.</span>
 


Yup. That about sums up how you're coming across.

Quote
I suppose this should be my final post on the forum.  I don't want to cause any more disharmony among you than I already have.  Indeed that was never my intention.  


Yet, that is exactly what you brought about by your militant posts. There's a bright shiny message for ya.

Quote It seems that there is no polite way to tell someone that you feel that the beliefs that they hold dear, are primitive and ridiculous superstitious nonsense.  


There are certainly more civil, considerate and honoring ways to say that you do not agree with what someone else holds dear. I'm sure if you continue to maul away at it, you'll eventually find the right approach that doesn't kill your target, or send others in your direction to stop your attacks.

Quote Indeed even questioning someones beliefs is enough to send some right over the edge.  


So, you consider your attacks and dismissals mere questioning? You have much to consider that you have yet to realize.

Quote
It was stated that I should attempt to see things from the other side... indeed I have, for many years.  I would invite any objectively minded individual to do the same.  Ask yourselves.  Have you ever considered for even a second that you could be wrong?  


Doctor, heal thyself.

Quote Have you even considered the fact that your beliefs could be false, or that another set could be right, and you have been leading your life based on the wrong theology?  


Doctor, heal thyself.

Quote I would invite you to read the works of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Danial Denett, Sam Harris, and many others.  


Add Joseph Campbell, Rabbi Harold Kushner and Carl Jung to your list when you get a chance.

Quote Short of that, pick up another religious text.. whatever one, it doesn't matter.  Read the Torah, or the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Book of Mormon.  After you read one of the texts from another faith, ask yourself this question.  Are you convinced?  


Why must one be convinced. Can't one simple walk away inspired? It is not always a binary world with your view that rules.

Quote Will you convert your faith?  This is how I feel, and I imagine most atheists feel.  We're not convinced.  I've read your book(s) and they are unconvincing.  There is no evidence.


Perhaps you might approach all of them differently and merely seek the wisdom that each offers and leave behind anything that simple does not fit into your philosophy. You know, take what you like and leave the rest. It's a very simple zen way of living with the crazies we all shall encounter on our paths.

Quote  We are all atheists as it relates to every faith and religion but whatever one you choose to follow and believe.  (or have chosen for you by your parents and your up-bringing in most cases)  We as atheists just choose to go one god further, and believe in no god and no religion at all.  Human beings began their religious journey being poly-theists, having many gods.  Now the majority of the world are mono-theists, having only the one god.  We're getting closer the the true figure all the time.  That's progress.  SmileTongueWink

I wish you well and much growth. Please try to be a little more gentle and considerate in your war.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date Posted: August/19/2016 at 6:58pm
I must begin with an apology to GrimoirA3 for hijacking his thread.  It was not my intention, but one post led to another led to another.  

I'm going to respond to some of the statements above.  I'm not going to do the "quote" thing.  I'm sure you all have memories orderly enough to recall who said what, and if that is not the case, then you can read back should you care to do so.

To the statement that the disharmony is within me, and that it is self destructive.  In a sense, I do not doubt it.  However, I assure you that I am quite well.  Thank you for your concern.

To the statement of my opinion that the world would be better off without religion is a "belief" of mine based on no proof or evidence.  I suppose I left myself open for that one.  I should have just stopped at "Yes, it is my opinion."  Having said that, it is also a fact, and I can give an example of proof.  It is safe to say that no one would deny that there have been, and still are unbelievable atrocities, and crimes against humanity as a result of fundamental, and extremist religious belief.  If the religions, and the belief in them had not existed, and did not exist now, those atrocities would not have taken place, and would not still be taking place to this very day.  

Which leads me to the statement that the religions, and religious beliefs are not the problem, but only the fundamentalists, and extremists.  I can't believe that you honestly believe that to be true..?  What do you think the fundamentalists and extremists are following?  The texts, and dogmas of the religions themselves!  Just because the majority of the religious are sane and intelligent enough to know better than to follow these texts and dogmas literally, doesn't make the texts and dogmas associated with the religions ok.  So again I say, remove the religions, their dogmas, their totalitarianism, and their sadomasochism, and you remove the problem.  Of course humanity is abundant with other issues that plague our societies, and humanity in general, but no one can argue that throwing off all the superstitious religious dogma and leaving it in the bronze and iron ages where they belong, wouldn't do a great deal to improve our ability to bring people together and solve the real, and more important issues of humanity.  

To the statement "Doctor, heal thyself."  (that one made me laugh, I must admit)  I already answered this one before, but I don't mind reiterating it here.  I was raised christian, and even though I stopped going to church very young, I did maintain a belief in god.  Or at the very least I gave no thought to god.  Church, religion, and god, were just not relevant to my life.  It was only after becoming a Freemason that I began to really take a look at religions, and religious beliefs.  So I could say that my membership in the fraternity did a great deal to push me over the edge into full on atheism.  I did go through a transition.  I went from having been raised christian, to agnostic, to deist, and finally to atheist.  I have always considered the fact that I could be wrong.  I still consider it to this day.  I don't think it is very likely that I am, but yes, of course I could be wrong.  The interesting thing that I have found in talking with the religious is that the vast majority of them have never even considered that they could be wrong.  Or even made the least concession that another faith could be more accurate than their own.  Not only that, but many of them believe, and are not afraid to tell me, that I am going to hell because I do not believe.  Can no one else see the one way thinking, and arrogance of this?  

 Thank you to those who have wished me well, and I return well wishes of my own.  I hope this post is mild enough for everyone.  

  Again, apologies to Grim for hijacking the thread for what seems to have become no more than a debate between myself and a few others.  Should anyone care to continue this discussion, I am available via private message.  

With that I'll close, and turn the thread back over to the discussion of the soul.


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date Posted: August/19/2016 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

...Which leads me to the statement that the religions, and religious beliefs are not the problem, but only the fundamentalists, and extremists.  I can't believe that you honestly believe that to be true..?  What do you think the fundamentalists and extremists are following?  The texts, and dogmas of the religions themselves!  Just because the majority of the religious are sane and intelligent enough to know better than to follow these texts and dogmas literally, doesn't make the texts and dogmas associated with the religions ok.  So again I say, remove the religions, their dogmas, their totalitarianism, and their sadomasochism, and you remove the problem.  Of course humanity is abundant with other issues that plague our societies, and humanity in general, but no one can argue that throwing off all the superstitious religious dogma and leaving it in the bronze and iron ages where they belong, wouldn't do a great deal to improve our ability to bring people together and solve the real, and more important issues of humanity.  

No matter what you might try to remove from the reading list of the human population, you shall always have self-proclaimed militants emerge, many fighting some imaginary windmill, thrusting some just cause into the faces of their targets and causing major suffering as a result of their unsubdued passions.
Quote ... Not only that, but many of them believe, and are not afraid to tell me, that I am going to hell because I do not believe.  Can no one else see the one way thinking, and arrogance of this?  

Of course it's arrogant. It's judgmental, uncivil and uncalled for... very much like what you were apologizing for in your post.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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.

-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: coach
Date 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.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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.  


-------------
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: droche
Date 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?


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: droche
Date 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.


Posted By: coach
Date 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?




-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date 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?


Posted By: coach
Date 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.

-------------
Building Builders - Masonic Education!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: droche
Date Posted: September/01/2016 at 7:34pm
That's my feeling.


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: droche
Date 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?


Posted By: Adept?
Date 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."


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: coach
Date 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!

http://www.coach.net/BuildingBuilders.htm" rel="nofollow - Books I Wrote | http://www.facebook.com/johns.nagy" rel="nofollow - My FB Wall


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!


Posted By: GrimoireA3
Date 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!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net