No religion can believe in an eternal soul

[NDS]

Christianity, or more specifically the Bible, states that the spirits of humans were created by God in God's image. To be created means that they must not have existed before, so human spirits (and angels for that matter) can't possibly be eternal because eternity goes in both directions.

In Buddhism they just say up front that there is no such thing as an invisible thing called a soul, and especially one which is eternal.

In Hinduism and Islam, souls are created as well, and this creation process never stops. Again, if something was created than it can't be eternal.

I just thought it was interesting to point out that many religions say that the soul is eternal, but it can't be since it was created. And if the saying, "Anything that has a beginning has an end" has any merit, then there is something to be said about an eternal soul that was created, especially created by another being.

Basically, if we have an invisible thing called a soul/spirit/whatever, than it really isn't eternal by nature. Since we had a beginning, we can have an end (namely, God can end it if he began it).

 

[draqon]

Buddhism says precisely that you have a choice on what you wish for, including eternal soul

 

[NDS]

Ya, but in Buddhism when you die as a human, you die as an individual personal soul forever. The same personal ego is not reborn in a new body after you die, like in Hinduism. So, no, Buddhism cannot offer an eternal personal soul no matter how hard you wish. Please provide a source which says otherwise about Buddhist beliefs though to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[draqon]

Ya, but in Buddhism when you die as a human, you as an indivdual die forever. The same personal ego is not reborn in a new body after you die, like in Hinduism. So, no, Buddhism cannot offer an eternal personal soul no matter how hard you wish. Please provide a source which says otherwise about Buddhist beliefs though to correct me if I am wrong.

well you first provide where you are getting this ego thing dying. Because that precisely what buddhism is about, reincarnation or feeling of self uniqueness without the memory but with consciousness of self.

 

[sandy]

Spirit and soul are two different things. Soul is mind/will/emotion. The Bible says your spirit is eternal. I believe it. It also says we are spirits, we live in bodies, and we have souls.

 

[NDS]

Sandy, Genesis contains two accounts of the creation.

Account 1

Gen 1:26-28
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Account 2

Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Why the two different accounts of creation? What did the first one represent?

Also, did God create each individual spirit? If not how did our spirits come into existence?

 

[sandy]

Those are the same things, different versions.

I believe God created each spirit. The Bible says he *knows* us all so deeply He knows the number of hairs on our heads.

I can't answer your eternity beginning question though. That's a good one. It's kind of like God is the great "I am". He always was, always will be...

Maybe we always were spirits but we just had no concept of it until God gave us our souls and put us into our bodies?:shrug:

 

[pjdude1219]

i always thought it was immortal soul not eternal soul

 

[NDS]

Yeah but if we were always spirits than one could ask, "Did God create us intentionally or did we exist kind of as a by product of God (like in Hinduism)"

I always thought that in Christianity God created human spirits for a specific purpose either in response to Satan's fall or for some other reason (he was lonely). Either way, the Chritian belief is that God intentionally created us as oppoed to Hinduism where we are byproducts of God.

So if we have a beginning then we can have an end, right? I don't know.

Either way, I like the Christian idea of retaining one's indivduality in the afterlife as opposed to Buddhism or some sects of Hinduism. I don't like the idea of not existing.

Just out of curiosity though Sandy, I believe that no human has the capacity to believe anything 100% or have 100% faith (maybe even Jesus with the "why have you forsaken me" comment). The Bible seems to describe different measures of faith. Do you agree that no human, with the possible exception of Jesus can have or has ever had 100% belief in God, or in anything for that matter? Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[sandy]

I can only speak for myself. I have 100% faith in God. When He tells me to do something, I do it no matter how odd it seems. I would do anything for Him. Anything.

 

[NDS]

All I'm saying is that Jesus at point says, "For assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any mountains moved by a human lately. This tells me that humans have little faith, but all God asks from us is a small amount of faith, or just to try to believe at the very least.

I can't make myself fully believe anything. I can kind of make myself believe that I fully believe something, or in otherwords I can convince myself and tell myself that I believe something, but that doesn't make it so.

From my reading of the bible, it seems like guys like Paul always talk about levels of faith, strong or weak faith, etc.


In either case, what do these verses tell us about the nature of faith:

36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go and pray over there." 37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. 38 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me." 39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."
NKJV

In this case Jesus is clearly distressed. If he had 100% faith that he was the Son of God and could truly bear the burden of all man's sins then he would not have been distressed at all. He wouldn't have had to pray three times to ask God to help him overcome his human doubt. This is why I think it is dangerous and incorrect to think that humans with our limited souls (not spirits) could possibly believe in God 100%, or have 100% faith. It seems like God made it that way for a reason (if people had 100% faith then there would be no free will?).

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" 47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!"
NKJV

In this verse, Jesus asks why have you forsaken me to God. Clearly there was some doubt, as incredibly small as it was, in his mind that God had somehow left him out to dry. But in the end, this last temptation was overcame. If Jesus, or more specifically the human Jesus (not his spirit), had 100% faith, then there would be no "last temptation".

14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
NKJV

So here, not even the disciples who witnessed ALL of the amazing miracles of Jesus didn't believe (or at least was far from 100% faith, very far). In fact they are constantly rebuked throughout their walk with Jesus about how little their faith was.

So, Sandy, I can't see how anyone could possibly claim to have 100% faith in God, because to me the Bible is telling us that it really isn't possible so long as our spirits our stuck in these bodies.

I just don't see how any human could know anything for sure, or believe things which can't be verified by the senses 100% (such as the string theory, multiple universe theory, God, etc.)

To say you have 100% faith is like saying you KNOW that God exists or that Jesus was the true Son of God. No one can say they "know" anything for sure. According to the Bible, only God is omnicient. I could think that gloabal warming is not caused by mankind, but I would be fooling myself if I said that I knew it wasn't being caused by man. It is impossible to know anything, and in many cases to believe anything, for sure.

 

[jayleew]

Basically, if we have an invisible thing called a soul/spirit/whatever, than it really isn't eternal by nature. Since we had a beginning, we can have an end (namely, God can end it if he began it).

Good point for the most part, but I would challenge that if something has a beginning it must have an end. Which theory is that? (no sarcasm intended)

I mean have we proven the universe had a beginning yet? I know there is a theory that actually it is in a pendulum state of existence.

It just seems you are limiting your scope a bit, like you are filtering existence with a set of rules and nothing can break them. The universe is not that tested yet. We don't know limits of time and space yet.

I believe if there was a god, that we should not be able to grasp the concepts to create life from only chemicals...much less a concept of a soul.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think you can prove that spirits do not exist. I don't believe in them and would agree that they do not exist based on the lack of evidence, but I don't have any evidence that there is or is not any spirits. Though, I do enjoy watching the original Ghost Hunters.

 

[NDS]

Good point for the most part, but I would challenge that if something has a beginning it must have an end. Which theory is that? (no sarcasm intended)

Ya, I should have said, "If something has a beginning, it CAN have an end." Your right, that doesn't mean that it has to have an end. I guess I was trying to say that every religion which believes in a God believes that this God created us (or we are byproduct of God). So this means that our spirits, if they were truly created by a god are not eternal or immortal by nature. Instead, it would mean that God controls how long our spirits exist. So, right, if he doesn't kill our spirits for the rest of eternity then we may never die, but the substance or thing that is our individual spirits cannot be eternal on its own.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think you can prove that spirits do not exist. I don't believe in them and would agree that they do not exist based on the lack of evidence, but I don't have any evidence that there is or is not any spirits. Though, I do enjoy watching the original Ghost Hunters.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I don't say I know that spirits exist, but I can't deny them either. In fact there is a large amount of evidence for an afterlife or at least for the ability of some mediums. It's all very interesting. I truly wish I had 100% faith in something, but I don't, and I don't think that's possible. From my point of view, I see errors or things that don't seem right in all religions and maybe there's an aspect of truth to every religion as well. But, like you, I'm open to anything.

 

[NDS]

well you first provide where you are getting this ego thing dying. Because that precisely what buddhism is about, reincarnation or feeling of self uniqueness without the memory but with consciousness of self.

My source is a book called "Ethics" by Lawrence M. Hinman. In describing Buddhism on page 76 he states the following:

The dominant metaphor that Buddhists use is that of the passing of a flame from one candle to another. The personal self moves through the wheel of existence in the same way the candle moves from one flame to another:It is both the same flame and yet a different flame. So the same personal ego is not reborn in a different body; instead some spark of life passes on to a new body.

In this sense, there is no consequences for our actions because "we" as we know ourselves won't exist after we die! So why not enjoy life to the fullest while your here? Surely pleasure can't be had without some pain, but if you become a monk and shack yourself up then you have no chance at experiencing any pleasure.

 

[Lori_7]

Sandy, Genesis contains two accounts of the creation.

Account 1

Gen 1:26-28
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Account 2

Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Why the two different accounts of creation? What did the first one represent?

Also, did God create each individual spirit? If not how did our spirits come into existence?

i'm confused, as these scriptures are describing the creation of our physical bodies, not the creation of our spirits. maybe all our spirits are part of god.

 

[nova900]

maybe all our spirits are part of god.

That's what I believe.
Near Death accounts seem to suggest the same thing.

 

[draqon]

well than this Lawrence is wrong...NDS

 

[NDS]

well than this Lawrence is wrong...NDS

Maybe so, but that is your opinion. he may be wrong. He may be right. I mean, I'm sure he did some research before just writing that in there. He interviewed people like the Dalai Lama for this book, who seems to say that indeed people don't have invisible things called spirits.

The Dalai Lama, obviously a great Buddhist, says in his book "Ethics for a new millennium," on page 43, the following:

"The word "self" does not denote an independant object. Rather it is a label for a complex web of interrelated phenomena"

So Lawrence and one of the most knowledgable Buddhists of our time both agree that there is no soul/spirit.

i'm confused, as these scriptures are describing the creation of our physical bodies, not the creation of our spirits. maybe all our spirits are part of god.

Yeah, maybe that's true but if Genesis 1 wasn't the creation of the spirits of humans then when did the Christian God create all of the individual human spirits? If he didn't create us, then we have no purpose (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

 

[Myles]

That's what I believe.
Near Death accounts seem to suggest the same thing.

ND experiences are no more than electrochemical activity in the limbic system of the brain. It can be produced by stimulating the brain with electricity.

 

[nova900]

ND experiences are no more than electrochemical activity in the limbic system of the brain. It can be produced by stimulating the brain with electricity.

True, some of the "symptoms" of NDEs...the tunnel, the light,floating sensation,out of body experience,but ...it does not explain that there appear to be recognizable and repeatable themes or things revealed to people throughout them despite differences in the details of the account and the fact they encompass a wide variety of people,believers as well as non-believers. Sort of like the same TV episode but presented somewhat differently each time.
I understand the work that Blackmore and Karl Jansen and others have done on it but it still doesn't seem to account for these re-occuring themes.

I'm ultimately open to the possibility that they are just the dying brain undergoing a complex set of chemical reactions but my intuition tells me otherwise.