When do babies get a soul?
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Don't throw a fit. It's only logical to conclude "that which breathes" refers not to an immortal intangible, but the physical. It's refrenceable. Many sources conclude that our modern day rendering of these words are as you said inaccurate to the understanding of the Hebrews, who neither believed in an immortal human soul nor an immortal human spirit. [according to scripture]
stehn auf-
stehn auf-
LG,
What would make a biological machine, like a human or a bacterium any different? Aren’t they simply constructed from different materials? The energy flow in biological mechanisms is maintained by metabolic processes that are fueled by externally consumed materials. Stop the flow of nutrition for long enough and the biological entity shuts down, i.e. dies.
The difference between a biological machine and say a computer is that once the energy flow ceases for long enough then the materials decay and are unable to regain sufficient integrity to operate again, i.e. resurrection becomes impossible. Unlike a computer whose components general do not decay so resurrection is possible no matter how long the energy had been removed.
What then is a soul now since your new implication is obviously more than your statement of a difference between alive/non-alive biological matter?
Since self-awareness, intelligence, thoughts, emotions, do not seem to be generated by any other organs then the brain seems an outright winner, right?
What more is there? Why conclude anything else?
And the religious alternative is – the brain doesn’t do these things but instead something inconceivable and unsupportable and something immaterial – magic happens. Why could this ever be considered credible as opposed to –
The brain exists, is complex, and self-awareness and intelligence exists. Linking the connection seems, and forgive the pun, like a no-brainer.
In a nutshell – massively complex brain that we are still trying to understand and whose functions are clearly in the ballpark of thoughts, emotions, self-awareness, intelligence, etc.
Your offering – magic that unexplainably causes and maintains life.
Where is your credibility?
That doesn’t answer the question. What exactly is the difference? All that can be seen is the absence of an energy flow similar to turning off the electrical power to a computer. Could we say that a computer that is turned on is alive and when it is turned off it is dead? We wouldn’t say that the flow of electrons is a soul since we know better.
What would make a biological machine, like a human or a bacterium any different? Aren’t they simply constructed from different materials? The energy flow in biological mechanisms is maintained by metabolic processes that are fueled by externally consumed materials. Stop the flow of nutrition for long enough and the biological entity shuts down, i.e. dies.
The difference between a biological machine and say a computer is that once the energy flow ceases for long enough then the materials decay and are unable to regain sufficient integrity to operate again, i.e. resurrection becomes impossible. Unlike a computer whose components general do not decay so resurrection is possible no matter how long the energy had been removed.
That really doesn’t help. All I can see in this context is that “soul” means the presence of energy flow.
That would be consistent with the concept that all living things are maintained by an active metabolic process. We don’t need to call that a soul.
Agreed. Again consistent with an active metabolic process.
This introduces new definitions of “soul” that are in conflict with your earlier definition. You imply/state that “soul” is the difference between a dead thing and a living thing. How can such a state difference have desires or be dormant?
What then is a soul now since your new implication is obviously more than your statement of a difference between alive/non-alive biological matter?
Which is consistent again with an active metabolic process.
So let’s look at this differently. Every biological organ performs a specific function which we can generally identify. Degrees of self-awareness and intelligence are also manifestations of living organisms and that degree correlates quite nicely with brain size and complexity. It is not a huge leap to conclude that these features are maintained by the brain, an organ of immense complexity that we as yet do no fully comprehend how it operates, but through endless clinical experiments we do know it accounts for thoughts, memory, and emotions, and its tentacles (nervous system) are spread throughout the biological entity. I’ll avoid the label “consciousness” since that introduces irrelevant connotations to this discussion.
Since self-awareness, intelligence, thoughts, emotions, do not seem to be generated by any other organs then the brain seems an outright winner, right?
What more is there? Why conclude anything else?
And the religious alternative is – the brain doesn’t do these things but instead something inconceivable and unsupportable and something immaterial – magic happens. Why could this ever be considered credible as opposed to –
The brain exists, is complex, and self-awareness and intelligence exists. Linking the connection seems, and forgive the pun, like a no-brainer.
An artificially contrived concoction that has no relevance. It is only invented in a diversionary attempt to support an unsupportable notion of a soul.
Please don’t be insulting and so foolish. Please see the description of active metabolism above. Your argument is just as dumb as the person who complains that his computer isn’t working because the power has been turned off.
I’m very serious here – this is not a bluff. Before electricity, for example, was discovered and for millennia people had no idea how emotions, thoughts, self-awareness, etc could be generated other than something magical. And the ancient Egyptians simply mushed the brain material and threw it away during mummification because they could not see any connection. And current religious thinking and the soul concept is still in those dark and ignorant patterns. So please wake up – the brain is an incredible organ with some 2 billion neurons and trillions of connections – gee I wonder where all these soul-like attributes are being generated. Surely this should be so obvious. So why-oh-why is this soul nonsense still around. It simply has no basis in fact.
I see no conflict here with my statement.
And your answer is magic that is infinitely further away from what you claim is science fiction. If even what I am saying is science fiction then what possible basis and credibility can you offer for your fantasies of immaterial souls?
In a nutshell – massively complex brain that we are still trying to understand and whose functions are clearly in the ballpark of thoughts, emotions, self-awareness, intelligence, etc.
Your offering – magic that unexplainably causes and maintains life.
Where is your credibility?
Or maybe you merely had a fit.
logic dictates that the use of the word in the scriptures as refering to the "souls upon the alter" (where the blood was offered up as sacrifice as well as burnt offerings), or even "the pouring out of his soul to the very death," refering again to the blood...Or even the simple knowledge of knowing how sacred the Hebrews/ Isrealites viewed blood it's self as well as the prohibition of taking in blood. Not to mention the bible historians who've commented on the communal nature of blood with the word 'nephesh'
Thus it is not a matter of "luck" but of knowledge. In this case you merely don't have it. Sorry. As I said it is refrenceable. If you desire knowledge...then look for it.
I hear you pleading and begging...but I will not oblige you in the debate you desire.
While I have no doubt that you will continue to engage me the most petty of debating tactics I should say you learn very slowly Snake Lord. But keep trying.
I will not engage in a useless debate with an individual whose sole purpose is to discredit the bible testimony at any cost. What uplifting purpose could there possibly be in such a discussion. I've talked with many people who disagree with the bible. We've had meaningfull conversations. But note the difference...Those people were listening. As a result we both learned something...It was mutally beneficial.
That being said. If you can show me in action or in dialogue that you can carry on a discussion with out antagonism, contentiousness or combative argumentive rejoinders...I would be happy to carry on a discussion with you.
As it stand you'll just have to hope someone else will ask the right questions. Now there's a linguistic feat of domain that you will be hard pressed to measure up to. Heres to all 360 degrees of inforbidity...you're going to need everyone.
Last edited:
In response to the OP--as the soul is the seat of the mind, emotions and the intellect, a child is created from the beginning with one. If the question is regarding the spirit, it comes at the point of life as well--in utero---at conception...undeveloped, but ready to go.
Some say it occurs at the first inhalation, and it sounds good to those who have a more romantic view of life's beginnings, but as aborted and miscarried fetuses have a spiritual self because of certain Scriptural references, it couldn't possibly be that late in life, so, at conception is the most obvious answer.
Some say it occurs at the first inhalation, and it sounds good to those who have a more romantic view of life's beginnings, but as aborted and miscarried fetuses have a spiritual self because of certain Scriptural references, it couldn't possibly be that late in life, so, at conception is the most obvious answer.
Such as?
Usage of nephesh in the OT, (number of times appears next to word):
any 3
appetite 2
beast 2
body 4
breath 1
creature 9
dead 5
dead body 4
desire 4
fish 1
ghost 2
heart 15
hearty 1
herself 2
himself 8
life 117
lust 2
man 3
mind 15
mortally 1
myself 1
one 1
own 1
person 29
pleasure 3
soul 475
thing 2
themselves 3
thyself 1
will 4
would have it 1
yourselves 6
No 'blood'. Better luck next time.
Needless to say, it would be more professional and courteous if you were to link me to a source. Thanks.
Figures. You do this every time you're called on a claim you make that you can't support. You then get even more hostile with the other person while accusing them of trying to 'discredit bible testimony'. Instead of your worthless, childish rant you could have just linked me heh?
Yeah well, sorry to let you down once again, Snakelord. You seem to feed on funky debates. Childish is the perfect description of your persistent goading. But I find it amusing and sort of innocent. It potentially has positive qualities and I did like the tone of this post over all your past expressions.