Who or What really has a Soul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. Maybe anything that has energy also has a soul. And if Einstein was correct, when the body dies, the soul lives on.

Einstein was a scientist. I don't think he made any statements about the soul which only exists in some religions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. Maybe anything that has energy also has a soul. And if Einstein was correct, when the body dies, the soul lives on.

Ugh. This is just pseudo-scientific claptrap. You're taking the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total energy of an isolated system can't change (which is not, and postulating that the soul is made up of some kind of as yet undetectable energy that continues to exist after the physical body decomposes.

By invoking the law of conservation of energy, you require that the "soul energy" never leave this physical universe, otherwise conservation of energy is violated. And if you want to invoke Einstein, then, among other things, the "soul energy" would be subject to physical laws related to speed, decay, etc., and even E=mc^2 means that "soul energy" could be converted to physical matter and back again.

[Anonymous]

People have souls . So do fetuses . Jeremiah 1:5, "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People have souls . So do fetuses . Jeremiah 1:5, "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

Oh, that proves it all right!

Got any more convincing Bible verses for us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. Maybe anything that has energy also has a soul. And if Einstein was correct, when the body dies, the soul lives on.

Einstein was a scientist. I don't think he made any statements about the soul which only exists in some religions

[Anonymous]

If animals have souls, are they morally responsible for their acts? I fed a stray dog twice and on Day 3, it bit me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If animals have souls, are they morally responsible for their acts? I fed a stray dog twice and on Day 3, it bit me.

It seems to have disliked your menu. It gave you two chances, but three strikes and your out.

[Anonymous]

Oops, you're, not your

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have souls . So do fetuses . Jeremiah 1:5, "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

Oh, that proves it all right!

Got any more convincing Bible verses for us?

More evidence than anybody else has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have souls . So do fetuses . Jeremiah 1:5, "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

Oh, that proves it all right!

Got any more convincing Bible verses for us?

More evidence than anybody else has.

Just 'cause you believe it doesn't make it evidence. If being written down and believed by millions were the sole criteria for evidence then the internet would be evidence of all kinds of ridiculous things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have souls . So do fetuses . Jeremiah 1:5, "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

Oh, that proves it all right!

Got any more convincing Bible verses for us?

More evidence than anybody else has.

Just 'cause you believe it doesn't make it evidence. If being written down and believed by millions were the sole criteria for evidence then the internet would be evidence of all kinds of ridiculous things.

but pp believes that God said it, you know, the Supreme being, so that's supposed to be very impressive, even though God supposedly said it a couple of thousand years in a sadly outdated book.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the rabid atheists came to this thread too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the rabid atheists came to this thread too.

would yo prefer a conversation where everyone believes the same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, an interesting take on the age-old question: which religion is true?

From the Judeo-Christian point of view: God made man in his image and only humans have souls.

This is based on the Bible and, to Christians, the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels/ New Testament.

Therefore, to answer your question, it would seem to me that you need to understand why the Bible itself is truth. That is not the same thing as saying it should be interpreted literally word for word, I hasten to add, but as God's revelation to his people throughout the ages.

And for that, you need to start a whole new discussion: How do we know the Bible is the truth?

Those who believe the Bible (or Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc.) have faith that their respective scriptures are "true" (for whatever definition of "true" you care to assign, ranging from, "I realize that it's a collection of stories, but not literally the verbatim words of a deity," on up to, "The Bible is the true and inerrant Word of God and you must obey every word as written."), but there is no way to know with certainty that such a religious text is true.

Correct, I suppose. But if studied from an archeological and historic point of view, the Bible is far more on point than either the Koran or Book of Mormon. It's not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, an interesting take on the age-old question: which religion is true?

From the Judeo-Christian point of view: God made man in his image and only humans have souls.

This is based on the Bible and, to Christians, the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels/ New Testament.

Therefore, to answer your question, it would seem to me that you need to understand why the Bible itself is truth. That is not the same thing as saying it should be interpreted literally word for word, I hasten to add, but as God's revelation to his people throughout the ages.

And for that, you need to start a whole new discussion: How do we know the Bible is the truth?

Those who believe the Bible (or Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc.) have faith that their respective scriptures are "true" (for whatever definition of "true" you care to assign, ranging from, "I realize that it's a collection of stories, but not literally the verbatim words of a deity," on up to, "The Bible is the true and inerrant Word of God and you must obey every word as written."), but there is no way to know with certainty that such a religious text is true.

Correct, I suppose. But if studied from an archeological and historic point of view, the Bible is far more on point than either the Koran or Book of Mormon. It's not even close.

Which is not saying much. Sort of like saying that Santa Claus is more believable than the easter bunny, because it's more likely that a person would bring presents than a rabbit would bring candy.