Who or What really has a Soul?

[Anonymous]

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

You don't have to be a rabid atheist to know the facts about the Bible -- Many religious people are aware of them too because they study them in college, instead of just learning them in Sunday school, like most people

[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.

Many parents have the same story about their two year old. Does that mean they don't have a soul?

I believe all living creatures that experience consciousness has a soul. Their soul (or spirit) have varying levels of advancement, but they all have a soul.

[Anonymous]

Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

this is your belief, totally not supported by science

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

this is your belief, totally not supported by science

You can say that about the whole thread. Hw are you contributing to this discussion? (NP) I just picture a 8 year old standing there saying, "oh yeah? Prove it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is saying quite a lot. For one thing, the Bible (alone among other religious texts) is filled with prophesy from the Old Testament that came to fruitition in the New. There are something like 275 references to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ in the OT alone. That in and of itself is pretty miraculous and nothing of the sort can be found in any other holy books. On top of that is the historic, geographic and archeological findings that back up the fact of the Bible's accuracy as the word of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

If soul is energy than it takes a long time for you soul to completely leave your dead body. As your dead body decays your soul would slowly be leaching from it. Where as the bible describes your soul leaving your body in one single instance. So according to the bible your soul is not energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is saying quite a lot. For one thing, the Bible (alone among other religious texts) is filled with prophesy from the Old Testament that came to fruitition in the New. 1. There are something like 275 references to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ in the OT alone. That in and of itself is pretty miraculous and nothing of the sort can be found in any other holy books. On top of that is the 2. historic, geographic and archeological findings that back up the fact of the Bible's accuracy as the word of god.

1. not really -- it's just fundamentalists trying to fit OT sayings into the NT.

2. exactly the opposite, as a matter of fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

this is your belief, totally not supported by science

You can say that about the whole thread. Hw are you contributing to this discussion? (NP) I just picture a 8 year old standing there saying, "oh yeah? Prove it."

You can say that about just about anything related to religion, because it is faith based. Different religions have different, sometimes conflicting beliefs, but still people have faith, because proof is not needed for religion. Good thing, because there isn't any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is saying quite a lot. For one thing, the Bible (alone among other religious texts) is filled with prophesy from the Old Testament that came to fruitition in the New. 1. There are something like 275 references to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ in the OT alone. That in and of itself is pretty miraculous and nothing of the sort can be found in any other holy books. On top of that is the 2. historic, geographic and archeological findings that back up the fact of the Bible's accuracy as the word of god.

1. not really -- it's just fundamentalists trying to fit OT sayings into the NT.

2. exactly the opposite, as a matter of fact.

1) Sorry, but you are wrong.

2) And again here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

If soul is energy than it takes a long time for you soul to completely leave your dead body. As your dead body decays your soul would slowly be leaching from it. Where as the bible describes your soul leaving your body in one single instance. So according to the bible your soul is not energy.

Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no sense. The energy that makes a heart beat, makes brain waves, that are produced within the cells, leaves the body once it dies. Where does this energy go after the body dies? It has to go somewhere. It clearly isn't leeching onto the body because the EEG's show no activity when a person is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is saying quite a lot. For one thing, the Bible (alone among other religious texts) is filled with prophesy from the Old Testament that came to fruitition in the New. 1. There are something like 275 references to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ in the OT alone. That in and of itself is pretty miraculous and nothing of the sort can be found in any other holy books. On top of that is the 2. historic, geographic and archeological findings that back up the fact of the Bible's accuracy as the word of god.

1. not really -- it's just fundamentalists trying to fit OT sayings into the NT.

2. exactly the opposite, as a matter of fact.

1) Sorry, but you are wrong.

2) And again here.

Only if facts don't count -- and in religion, faith usually comes first -- at least for a people in the pews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soul is energy. Every atom has energy. Everything has soul.

If soul is energy than it takes a long time for you soul to completely leave your dead body. As your dead body decays your soul would slowly be leaching from it. Where as the bible describes your soul leaving your body in one single instance. So according to the bible your soul is not energy.

Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no sense. The energy that makes a heart beat, makes brain waves, that are produced within the cells, leaves the body once it dies. Where does this energy go after the body dies? It has to go somewhere. It clearly isn't leeching onto the body because the EEG's show no activity when a person is dead.

the same place the energy of a dead cat or dog goes - or a dead bug or any living thing. When it dies, everything in its body dies, including whatever "energy" it had while living.

Now if you want to believe in a soul, go ahead, but please don't try to find scientific evidence for it.

[Anonymous]

Then it flies in the face of Einsteins' law of conservation then. That energy does not die. It has to go somewhere or change into something according to this law.

Explain it, atheist!

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:Then it flies in the face of Einsteins' law of conservation then. That energy does not die. It has to go somewhere or change into something according to this law.

Explain it, atheist!

The law of conservation of energy is not "Einstein's law." (Einstein is most famous for his Theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity. You might be thinking of Einstein's formulation of the mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, but that's not a statement of the law of conservation of energy.) The law of conservation of energy applies to a closed system (i.e. nothing gets in or out) and says that the total amount of energy in that system cannot change.

For the universe to be a closed system and for the soul to be physical energy of some kind has significant theological implications. Among other things, if you want this "soul energy" to be within a closed system, that would mean that Heaven (and Hell) would have to be part of that closed system, which would mean that Heaven and Hell would be subject to the physical laws that apply to the observable physical universe. AFAIK, none of the various sects of the Abrahamic traditions professes to believe this. If you want to talk about the religious traditions that involve reincarnation (e.g., Hinduism), on the other hand, that would be consistent with a closed system and would not require a Heaven/Hell.

It would also require that "soul energy" to be subject to physical laws, and the energy would have to be carried by a particle of some kind in the same way that photons are the fundamental particle associated with light and gravitons are the theorized particle associated with gravity. Such a fundamental "soul" particle would have physical characteristics that could be measured and detected.