If we say it is separate from the body and could exist without the body you have to decide when and if the soul enters the body. Without knowing we could only assume when it takes its first breath. But this is only assuming there is a soul separate from the body.

When we are considered alive as an individual independent of our mother should indicate a point in time when we become that individual. Potential to be independent is not the same as being independent. If a soul, we are speculating on the possibility not the certainty,does enter the body this point to me would be the most logical. We make that distinction in our views of life even if we do not believe in the duality of the human experience. It has never required a god or heaven to express a belief in the soul nor the idea that the soul has to be eternal. What is the gift of life is it a simple material thing? Believing life and nature as a simple biological accident is not exactly taking the most philosophical approach. We need to explore what life actually is and if that spark is ethereal in nature. That does include all life.We are not divorced from other forms of life because of our conscious ability.Science can describe life but it can never tell us what it means to be alive or ponder on the essence of life.

Christians have a problem with defining the soul because the bible sends mixed messages about its existence. The dead are dead till god returns and resurrects us all. If we had souls in the truest sense we would not be dead but simply devoid of the living body. We, I thought, were debating what might be if a soul did exist? When would the soul enter the body? We are not quite sure what constitutes the body when the brain is not functioning and what could be understood to be the soul or the mind. I see the mind as the expression of the soul and the mind needs to accept itself before the soul can take hold of the body. I can not convince anyone of the possibility of the soul but only logically consider what the philosophical consequences might be if it was taken as true.

Misty you are playing with words. You are not confirming or denying that the soul is a separate entity that carries with it the essence of that person. You appear to be agreeing with the atheist that if there can be considered a soul it dies with the body.

Misty wrote:

Xris wrote:Misty you are playing with words. You are not confirming or denying that the soul is a separate entity that carries with it the essence of that person. You appear to be agreeing with the atheist that if there can be considered a soul it dies with the body.

I think I am quite clear. The body from conception to death IS the SOUL. The soul is given life by God.
Soul, is the individual. When a female gives birth, she either gives birth to live soul (person) or a dead one.
The dead one is still a soul (individual) which lived at some point before birth. Each 'soul' or 'individual' is a
unique person, dead or alive. Xris, you know that I believe in God, so my thoughts will reflect creation. When
God fashioned Adam from the dust he was a 'soul', person, individual, that became a living 'soul' when God breathed
life into him.

What does your belief say to you?

I have no beliefs as such. I try to not be dogmatic as much as I can. I do accept the possibility of a soul so I try to treat it with a logical approach. My soul does not require a god or body to exist. I believe life is an experience that nature has secured and that life and death contains many mysteries we need to investigate with an open mind.

If a soul can be considered without reference to dogmatic religous determination we might find a kind of logic but like all spiritual questions the argument becomes a battle of faith verses scientific reasoning. Life enters the independent body and it leaves it with the same reason. We are born, as we take breath the soul enters it and when we die it leaves. The fetus is simply a prelude to life and has the potential to obtain a soul.

Scott wrote:Xris, you are saying that a newborn baby doesn't have a soul until it takes it's first breath? That seems somewhat arbitrary since the fetus still gets oxygen while in the womb. If I hold my breath for a few minutes, do I not have a soul during that time? Do any of the most intelligent non-mammalian ocean-life have a soul? How are you defining soul when you say it enters at first breath?

Are you saying then that if two would-be children are conceived on the same day and thus their mother's are both given the same due date but one mother goes into labor a month and half premature that her baby has a soul for the next month and a half while the other baby doesn't? What if the mother who has the baby premature actually conceived the baby weeks after the other women who is still pregnant up until her due date?

I am trying to be logical about an illogical subject. I have experiences that indicate the soul may exist so I try to make sense of what might be not what is. The child fed by its mother with life giving oxygen is not born, not living independent and is only potentially a human capable of baring a soul. As it takes its first breath the soul enters.

Wooden shoe wrote:Hi Xris.

The idea that a soul enters the infant when it takes its first breath, really makes me wonder as to how that soul gets there, or who or what delivers it. Somehow I doubt you believe in some kind of soul fairy, that arrives on the scene at the right moment. You have shown a strong dislike for the BB theory [which I share to a lesser degree] and yet you seem to indicate that you believe in the existence of something generally called "soul", but you do not believe much in a deity. So what do you mean with "soul", is your idea of soul the standard religious one? Where does this "soul" thing come from? And where does it go when the body it inhabits dies?

Regards, John

John and Scott I did mention this subject is pure conjecture. We are not debating the truth of the soul only the logic that assumes the soul exists and the relationship to the foetus. We might just ask when does the human spirit have independence from its mother. When are we considered alive in human terms as opposed to being part of our mothers body? If we have a soul it may well be considered in place when we take our first independent breath. If it is an immature birth or not, does not change the point of our first breath. John if you want to debate the likelihood of a soul or the spirit of man then it requires another debate.

Misty your concept of souls has no value. You are simply recognising life and death not an ethereal separate entity that has no reliance on a physical body. A sperm can not be considered as even living in the true sense. It can not even be said to posses potential without encountering an egg.

Misty wrote:

Xris wrote:Misty your concept of souls has no value. You are simply recognising life and death not an ethereal separate entity that has no reliance on a physical body. A sperm can not be considered as even living in the true sense. It can not even be said to posses potential without encountering an egg.

I think my concept of soul is of value and correct. Soul is an entity which can be alive or dead. A sperm and egg live until they die. If they have no value, potential, or life they could not combine to develop any further.

I was taught the religious concept of soul - which makes no sense to me at present.

What is your concept of soul?

It is the essence of an individual that can or might survive physical death. Life is not the soul but the soul expresses itself through life. I have no idea if it survives as a recognisable conscious entity or it is just the circle of life constantly expressing itself. Just like energy we do not loose the soul it simply changes. No fairy places life into our body, no fairy is required to express the soul in our bodies. Natures gift is life and life is just as much a spiritual experience as any ethereal reasoning. Why doubt the soul when life is just as big a mystery?

Thanks folks. If I am selling something I never intended to. I might just buy it myself. I really have no idea if I am right or wrong I just try to make sense of life's experiences without becoming too dogmatic. I am attached to nature and find it is trying to constantly inform me of truths that should be obvious to us but we have lost the ability to understand them. Of to the jolly ol pub for my weekly fix. Goodnight xris.

No one can deny we have a spiritual side to us. We are all moved by certain events without needing a belief system or requiring a soul. We live, we die and if there is a soul it is about experiencing life and appreciating its value. I do not need a god to accept the fact that the soul might be possible. Christians did not invent our spirituality or give the possibility of the eternal soul credibility. As pagans we worshipped our ancestors accepting life is a chain of events reaching back to a common mother. We are not separate from nature we have just lost that communion with it because of our parasitic advantage. Religion and belief in false gods are destroying nature and our spiritual contact with each other.

Misty wrote:

XDredg3 wrote:In the english definition it does. Let's try to keep it our language, it's already a hard enough language game. That's like me asking what does "gift" mean?

Besides aren't we talking about spiritual, which is: of, or relating to, blah blah affecting the spirit or soul of the human blah blah.

Good idea NOT to understand word origins and what they mean, that way we get a clear meaning!

Excuse me misty if I do not accept the bibles definition.

Misty wrote:

Xris wrote:

Misty wrote:

XDredg3 wrote:In the english definition it does. Let's try to keep it our language, it's already a hard enough language game. That's like me asking what does "gift" mean?

Besides aren't we talking about spiritual, which is: of, or relating to, blah blah affecting the spirit or soul of the human blah blah.

Good idea NOT to understand word origins and what they mean, that way we get a clear meaning!

Excuse me misty if I do not accept the bibles definition.

Xris,

Hebrew is a language not a religion. The definition I gave is not a bible definition but one of a language spoken by both Jews and non Jews.

So why quote the Hebrew definition. You might as well have quoted the chines definition if it has no biblical connotations.

Misty wrote:

Xris wrote:

Misty wrote:

Xris wrote:

Misty wrote:

XDredg3 wrote:In the english definition it does. Let's try to keep it our language, it's already a hard enough language game. That's like me asking what does "gift" mean?

Besides aren't we talking about spiritual, which is: of, or relating to, blah blah affecting the spirit or soul of the human blah blah.

Good idea NOT to understand word origins and what they mean, that way we get a clear meaning!

Excuse me misty if I do not accept the bibles definition.

Xris,

Hebrew is a language not a religion. The definition I gave is not a bible definition but one of a language spoken by both Jews and non Jews.

So why quote the Hebrew definition. You might as well have quoted the chines definition if it has no biblical connotations.

Why not?

You have used the Hebrew definition as if it has a certain value. Why use it if it has no biblical significance? For most English speaking, a standard English dictionary definition is the acceptable reference.