@gbrooks9
Indeed. A google search on “difference between spirit and soul” brings up many websites describing such distinctions between spirit and soul." And it is rather typical for such sites to describe them as coming from God which makes them utterly meaningless to me. I am only interested in what comes from me. Things which are given to me are nothing but circumstances. What matters is what I do with what I have been given. And therein lies the only thing that can be called my true self.
Life is a process of self-organization and this describes both the body and the mind. But these are physical things which will pass away. So the only question of interest is whether there is anything of me which will continue? I think there is and I find this in Paul’s description in 1 Cor 15. And on that basis I name this continuation of me the spirit.
I have little doubt that God has given all kinds of things to me. But these are just things and they are not who I am. To be sure they are worthy of a few thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. etc… etc… They are still not me.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
204
The Egyptians were known to divide the “person” into any number of “selves”.
While other cultures tended to unite these features into a single entity.
@mitchellmckain goes to great lengths to suggest that neither the Old or the New Testament renders a concept of the soul - - but he then simultaneously asserts that the Bible teaches only the Spirit.
You, yourself say the spirit would be the part of the person, distinct from the soul, that recognizes the spiritual side of the Universe.
Isnt this hair splitting? Why would we imagine the Soul does NOT recognize the spiritual? … if it has no body of flesh any longer to distract it?
Instead of stove-piping the soul as SIMPLY the personality, why would we not construe one’s spirit as containing the personality?
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
205
IMO without a spirit a human is just another animal, no conscience, no morals, no understanding of God, not accountable for sin. It’s by our spirit we can communicate with God and understand His ways. Others (like king Saul) prefer to use their spirit for the occult, not advisable.
That is just not believable. The scientific evidence contradicts this. There is every indication of both conscience and morality in animals, and I wouldn’t rule out an awareness of God either.
It is not even a spirit which distinguishes men from animals but only language. I think that is enough to suggest that the mind as a construct of language is another difference, and of course this makes a big difference with regards to communication with God also.
No I think this is another one of the distortions by human being living off of religion seeking to exaggerate their own importance – going too far both in the difference from animals and the connection with God.
Sorry but like evolution where the evidence is overwhelming, this is one of the things on which people just need to educate themselves, for the first step is simply being willing to look at the evidence. The simplest of google searches will bring it up.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
210
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
The branch of philosophy dealing with morality is ethics not metaphysics.
So the most you can say here is that the investigations finding morality in animals does raise some philosophical issues about what morality consists of, i.e. perhaps some discussions in the area of ethics are relevant. But even in that case, philosophy is not and never will be accepted as a filter upon the findings of science. The findings remain no matter what empty rhetoric you choose to spout as excuse to ignore them.
One thing to be wary of when looking into this… the claim is not that there is no difference between us and the animals. There certainly is. A good portion of that morality in animals is likely to be hardwired in instincts and a product of evolutionary advantage. Certainly most of human morality is great deal more than that.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
214
Metaphysics is the purported study of what exists BEHIND the veil of reality.
Nobody knows for sure whether a metaphysical system has any validity to it or not. I’m surprised you could even formulate the sentence I quote from you here … let alone assert it!
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
“Veil of reality” is a nonsensical phrase. If there is a veil then what is behind it is reality.
More nonsense. You cannot know what other people are capable of knowing for sure. Besides, I don’t buy into correspondence theory of truth or the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (as if people ever believe things they think are not true or not justified). Knowledge are the beliefs which people live by and nothing more – any other meaning of knowledge is little more than hot air. This works for science as well, for in science knowledge consists of the theories which become the tools of scientific inquiry. Certainty is an illusion which people choose to indulge in as an ego trip.
Well everyone knows all dogs go to heaven and I guess you know what the reversal of d-o-g spells. Coincidence? I don’t think so. It might be that none get to heaven without the recommendation of a dog, but that is just speculation.
2 Likes
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
217
No. As in those who think certainty is a measure of knowledge, and if they speak louder and repeat themselves then they can demonstrate a higher level of certainty.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
219
but maybe you can offer a reference.