Christianity creates violence

[emilynghiem]

There was violence BEFORE Christianity. There has been much violence AGAINST Christians and Christianity. And there is violence where Christianity is ABSENT (Jews vs. Muslims, etc.). Your OP is based on a false premise (at least the title is).

I have been a Christian since 1985. I have never struck, maimed, or killed another human being or animal in all of that time.

Actually what you claimed isn't true!

For all religions ' assault us ' with their various ideological easily proven BS!

Ok Composer
Prove that Christian spiritual healing
As taught andcpracticed by Dr Francis MacNutt and Dr Phillip Goldfedder
doesnt work and doesnt cure the causes of abuse violence and disease.
If its so easy
Prove it

Im

 

[emilynghiem]

More senseless and violent deaths can be attributed to Godless atheists than to any others.

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

More senseless and violent deaths can be attributed to Godless atheists than to any others.

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were adversaries, the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of the unrenewed mind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. Pleasure?! What pleasure? The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

 

[Hollie]

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

 

[emilynghiem]

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

 

[Hollie]

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

 

[PratchettFan]

then rear some history books

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

 

[Hollie]

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

 

[Hollie]

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing you're referring to? Is this "spiritual identity" unique to believers of the Christian gawds? If not, is there a consensus among the many gawds as to the terms and conditions of this "spiritual identity"?

 

[PratchettFan]

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

 

[Hollie]

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

No. It changes how we react to the world. It does not change the "me". You may find yourself unable to cope with stress, subject to bouts of uncontrolled anger, but you don't become someone else. You are still you. That is what I am asking about. What exactly is it that makes me? When you say "I feel X", what is the "I"?

Let me answer that question for you. We don't know. Is it some external "soul"? We don't know. Is it purely chemical? We don't know. You're claim that it is chemical is no less a belief than the claim it is a soul, because we don't know.

 

[Hollie]

What is this "spiritual identity" thing? What you're describing is personality and that has nothing to do with some religious connotation or connection with any alleged spirit realms.

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

No. It changes how we react to the world. It does not change the "me". You may find yourself unable to cope with stress, subject to bouts of uncontrolled anger, but you don't become someone else. You are still you. That is what I am asking about. What exactly is it that makes me? When you say "I feel X", what is the "I"?

Let me answer that question for you. We don't know. Is it some external "soul"? We don't know. Is it purely chemical? We don't know. You're claim that it is chemical is no less a belief than the claim it is a soul, because we don't know.

I've given you a clear example of how your "soul" thing is pointless and undemonstrated and how personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain.

The human body is a biological mechanism which functions in no way different from that of other mammals: there is a respiratory system, a nervous system, a lymphatic system, a circulatory system, a digestive system, etc. What powers these systems? Electrolytes.

And again, what is this "soul" thing? You keep dancing around any accounting of how your gawds or a syndicate of gawds implemented and manage this "soul" you insist exists but sidestep around defining.

Define for us this "soul".

 

[PratchettFan]

What exactly is "personality"?

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

No. It changes how we react to the world. It does not change the "me". You may find yourself unable to cope with stress, subject to bouts of uncontrolled anger, but you don't become someone else. You are still you. That is what I am asking about. What exactly is it that makes me? When you say "I feel X", what is the "I"?

Let me answer that question for you. We don't know. Is it some external "soul"? We don't know. Is it purely chemical? We don't know. You're claim that it is chemical is no less a belief than the claim it is a soul, because we don't know.

I've given you a clear example of how your "soul" thing is pointless and undemonstrated and how personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain.

The human body is a biological mechanism which functions in no way different from that of other mammals: there is a respiratory system, a nervous system, a lymphatic system, a circulatory system, a digestive system, etc. What powers these systems? Electrolytes.

And again, what is this "soul" thing? You keep dancing around any accounting of how your gawds or a syndicate of gawds implemented and manage this "soul" you insist exists but sidestep around defining.

Define for us this "soul".

No. You have claimed it. That is all you have done. I have to take it on faith.

I haven't got a clue what a "soul" is. I don't know if there is such a thing. When I say "we don't know" I wasn't excluding myself. But when someone said "this is a soul" you claimed it was just a personality, so I am asking your what a personality is. What chemical process in the brain is the personality and show me the scientific studies to support your claim. If you can't do that, you're just expressing another belief no better than any other belief.

 

[Hollie]

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

No. It changes how we react to the world. It does not change the "me". You may find yourself unable to cope with stress, subject to bouts of uncontrolled anger, but you don't become someone else. You are still you. That is what I am asking about. What exactly is it that makes me? When you say "I feel X", what is the "I"?

Let me answer that question for you. We don't know. Is it some external "soul"? We don't know. Is it purely chemical? We don't know. You're claim that it is chemical is no less a belief than the claim it is a soul, because we don't know.

I've given you a clear example of how your "soul" thing is pointless and undemonstrated and how personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain.

The human body is a biological mechanism which functions in no way different from that of other mammals: there is a respiratory system, a nervous system, a lymphatic system, a circulatory system, a digestive system, etc. What powers these systems? Electrolytes.

And again, what is this "soul" thing? You keep dancing around any accounting of how your gawds or a syndicate of gawds implemented and manage this "soul" you insist exists but sidestep around defining.

Define for us this "soul".

No. You have claimed it. That is all you have done. I have to take it on faith.

I haven't got a clue what a "soul" is. I don't know if there is such a thing. When I say "we don't know" I wasn't excluding myself. But when someone said "this is a soul" you claimed it was just a personality, so I am asking your what a personality is. What chemical process in the brain is the personality and show me the scientific studies to support your claim. If you can't do that, you're just expressing another belief no better than any other belief.

Correct, you haven't got a clue what this "soul" thing is but you insist it exists and apparently must be implemented and managed by one or more gawds.

How interesting that you are certain of something without having a clue about this "thing".

I have only to let you rattle on with things you have no clue about to let you dismantle your own argument..

As I wrote out previously, damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of concepts to the brain. You are simply (and by your own admission, cluelessly) assuming a supernatural causation for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

How curious that a simple matter of an imbalance of electrolytes in the blood can cause your "soul" thing to be dismantled.

 

[PratchettFan]

An emotion is not a personality. Assuming by personality you mean that which I identify as me. If I am happy I am still me. I do not become someone else if I am sad. So your reference to emotion is irrelevant. So, exactly what chemical process create me? If you remove the chemicals from my brain and put them in a jar, will that still be me?

Emotion certainly is a part of personality.

And the fact is, as I demonstrated to you, damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

Define for us the "soul" and how your gawds or a vast syndicate of gawds have agreed upon the terms and conditions of this "soul" thing.

No. It changes how we react to the world. It does not change the "me". You may find yourself unable to cope with stress, subject to bouts of uncontrolled anger, but you don't become someone else. You are still you. That is what I am asking about. What exactly is it that makes me? When you say "I feel X", what is the "I"?

Let me answer that question for you. We don't know. Is it some external "soul"? We don't know. Is it purely chemical? We don't know. You're claim that it is chemical is no less a belief than the claim it is a soul, because we don't know.

I've given you a clear example of how your "soul" thing is pointless and undemonstrated and how personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain.

The human body is a biological mechanism which functions in no way different from that of other mammals: there is a respiratory system, a nervous system, a lymphatic system, a circulatory system, a digestive system, etc. What powers these systems? Electrolytes.

And again, what is this "soul" thing? You keep dancing around any accounting of how your gawds or a syndicate of gawds implemented and manage this "soul" you insist exists but sidestep around defining.

Define for us this "soul".

No. You have claimed it. That is all you have done. I have to take it on faith.

I haven't got a clue what a "soul" is. I don't know if there is such a thing. When I say "we don't know" I wasn't excluding myself. But when someone said "this is a soul" you claimed it was just a personality, so I am asking your what a personality is. What chemical process in the brain is the personality and show me the scientific studies to support your claim. If you can't do that, you're just expressing another belief no better than any other belief.

Correct, you haven't got a clue what this "soul" thing is but you insist it exists and apparently must be implemented and managed by one or more gawds.

How interesting that you are certain of something without having a clue about this "thing".

I have only to let you rattle on with things you have no clue about to let you dismantle your own argument..

As I wrote out previously, damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of concepts to the brain. You are simply (and by your own admission, cluelessly) assuming a supernatural causation for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

How curious that a simple matter of an imbalance of electrolytes in the blood can cause your "soul" thing to be dismantled.

I'm not sure how you translated my statement of "I don't know if there is such a thing" to "I am certain there is such a thing". If you want to make up my part of the discussion, you don't really need me in it. Just let me know and I can back out. Otherwise, perhaps you can respond to what I actually write.

I clean scuba regulators as a second vocation. Part of that is dipping metal parts in a vinegar solution to remove corrosion. This is a weak acid and I dip the parts in a baking soda solution afterwards in order to terminate the chemical reaction of the vinegar interacting with the metal. According to your position, if I crush someone's skull with a hammer, I am just terminating a chemical reaction. Tell me what the difference is between the two actions.

 

[Meriweather]

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

For those of us who believe there is life after death, reason tells us that we have within us something that is capable of existence separate from the body. We call this the soul. It is the soul that contains our mind and personality, and indeed the body can either interfere with or promote the will of the soul. It is the soul, not the brain and its chemicals, that give physical animation to personality and choices. In this life, the soul presents itself (makes itself known) through the body.

 

[emilynghiem]

then rear some history books

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's called biased research and skewing the stats.

Why don't you include research on successful methods of spiritual healing that saves lives and restores health free and naturally. If you dont consider all cases, but just the ones that suit your argument, that's bad science. Like counting the no votes and throwing the yes votes in the trash. Not a fair strategy, and you seem more conscientious than that!

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

Biblical anthropology and soteriology have little to do with your nonsense. Your understanding of things is all wrong from the jump. There is no war between the body and the soul in Christianity, as if these two were the principal antagonists.

The soul/mind of a human being is the ultimate self, and a believer's spirit is the new creature directly imparted by God and alive in Christ Jesus. The term flesh is used interchangeably to refer to the errant physical urges of the body, to the errant thoughts/urges of the mind or to both. Comprehensively, the term flesh does not refer to the body or to the errant physical urges of the body exclusively. Indeed, that aspect of the struggle is the least of the believer's concern. The desires of the flesh are the desires of self will, the desires of fallen mankind, the desires of this world, which are at enmity with God.

You're going on about the dualism of the mind-body dichotomy, which has nothing to do with the Christian dichotomy of enmity whatsoever. The desires of the flesh are to be crucified daily. They must be denied. For they are the death and despair of this world. The mind/soul of the believer is being renewed/transformed by the word of God in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it's not the errant pleasures of the flesh, which are repugnant to the believer in any event, but the struggle to align one's will with that of God, to obey and follow His will only. Life in Christ is joy and triumph.

What is this "soul" thing you're rattling on about?

Your appeals to imaginary, superstitious, metaphysical entities are pointless when they are unsupportable except appended by "because I say so". Of course, that would define the entirety of your arguments deriving from fear and ignorance.

Dear Hollie
The soul refers to the unique spiritual identity and purpose of a person in life. Completely unique and worthy of dignity respect and compassion out of humanity.
You may call it something else, someone's unique personality or way of thinking, being and interacting. Regardless what you call each person's identity and personality, the point is to respect each individual and try to help each other make the most of our relations resources and time we have to live on earth.

What is this "spiritual identity" thing you're referring to? Is this "spiritual identity" unique to believers of the Christian gawds? If not, is there a consensus among the many gawds as to the terms and conditions of this "spiritual identity"?

Hi Hollie:
The Hindus also teach that every individual is born into this world as a "spiritual being"
That is what Hinduism basically means, each person is born a Hindu or Spiritual Being.
So it's not just Christianity, but other ways may describe people even more openly, less limited than how Christianity represents these in simplified terms.

Trying to define someone's spirit is as wide open as
1. people trying to define when life begins, when does a person have a right to their own will?
2. people trying to agree when someone's ORIENTATION is determined, is it at birth, is it chosen?
So that is where I would also say orientation is "spiritually determined" and it can happen either way:
at birth or through circumstances and influences or both. And both are part of someone's "spiritual path" in life.

Hollie since you do not relate to the Christian terms for these things,
I think the Buddhist way of describing the "spiritual process" may more objective and impersonal
and make more sense to you.

My mother is Buddhist and does not understand "soul" or "God"

I had to explain "soul" to her in terms of things she could relate to.

So I said it was the equivalent of the "intersection" of ALL the relations someone has with other people or "soulmates" either in this life, or beyond if you believe we are connected by conscience to people of other generations.

Even if you believe that all people are like a patchwork quilt of good and bad karma we carry and pass around, there is STILL a unique set of fabric that makes up MY PART of the patchwork quilt of humanity, and YOUR part is unique to you, a unique combination of everything you, your relationships and events in your life are made of.

So even if my mother does not believe each person has a separate soul, but we are all connected as energy, each person has a UNIQUE set of relationships with other people who matter in our lives, who shape our paths and purpose, what we do or don't do in life.

And so you can call the "Intersection" of all those unique relationships around us, that nobody has the same Combination of, the "equivalent" of what someone's soul is. For practical purposes, we are still talking about the same thing, no matter how we frame it.

That's how I explained it to my mom.

Whatever you feel or believe is YOU, regardless of anything else you can or cannot control,
that is what people refer to as your soul, your unique self, whatever you call that which nobody else is but YOU.

The point is to agree this is unique.
Some people just call it "individual" and it doesn't matter if you "spiritualize" it or not,
you are a still a UNIQUE person or "soul" and that's the point of it, to respect the real YOU.

 

[DriftingSand]

More senseless and violent deaths can be attributed to Godless atheists than to any others.

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

More senseless and violent deaths can be attributed to Godless atheists than to any others.

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ummmm ... the OP is about "Christianity" creating violence. You're clumping in pagans, Muslims, and who knows what else in the equation. The fact of the matter is that biblical Christianity NEVER calls for or requires the followers of Christ to commit acts of violence against anyone. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your skewed worldview but it is what it is.

Say hi to your idols, Pol Pot & Stalin for me (atheists, both).

 

[emilynghiem]

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

False. The reason you provided nothing to support your claim is because it's unsupportable.

the violence of the 20th century shows otherwise. More death and destruction in the past 100 years than all of human history combined.

and the next hundred years will be worse unless the world repents.

I see nothing that supports that contention. Your "because I say so" comment is hardly convincing.

then rear some history books

I actually have looked at the numbers and read the history. That's why it's clear that religion "wins" in the total destruction business.

Understanding Religious Fanatics... Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ummmm ... the OP is about "Christianity" creating violence. You're clumping is pagans, Muslims, and who knows what else in the equation. The fact of the matter is that biblical Christianity NEVER calls for or requires the followers of Christ to commit acts of violence against anyone. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your skewed worldview but it is what it is.

Say hi to you idols, Pol Pot & Stalin for me (atheists, both).

Thanks DriftingSand
For some historical resources
1. Two women authors of the book "Saving Paradise"
present the difference between the early church, before 1000, where the message
was brotherly love and heavenly paradise or peace on Earth BEFORE it got corrupted by political greed for power.

The crusades and first image of "killing in the name of the Cross"
began LATER around 1000 with the POLITICS of abusing the name of religion
to take over land, people and power. So that corrupted the pure Christian message
that was lost to politics and fighting for kingly domains.

2. Leo Tolstoy also denounced any killing and violence
that perverted the message and teachings of Christianity.
He held these were INCOMPATIBLE and could not be justified.
His books were censored in Russia. but he basically came
to a revelation about the true meaning and sought to expose the
false misteaching of Christianity, which to this day is
confused with the church or state power grab of authority.

Islam is going through similar again!
Where people blame the entire religion instead of
addressing the perversion or abuse of it for political power grabs.

Sad thing is when people fighting for justice
blame and reject each other for teaching it wrong instead of fixing the problems.

So everyone thinks of the other as the enemy
and they keep on fighting the same conflicts.

Same with politics, both demonizing the other side
for the corruption and abuses both are against
but don't agree what the solutions are, so they
thing the other side is against those solutions and wants to keep the problems.
Both sides think that and you wonder why it goes in circles.

Now history repeats again, with religions abused for politics,
and both sides blaming some other group for the problems.