Like the Trinity perhaps?Mastermind wrote:I wonder if it's possible for two or more people to share a soul... Or perhaps to have souls being "born" in a manner similar to siameze twins(connected to each other)
Kurieuo.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Actually, to be technical I think "soul" is more appropriate, as many do not consider "soul" to be synonymous for "spirit." I myself believe there to be a distinction between soul (i.e., our essense), and our spirit which I more understand as a "spiritual body" attached to soul. Although I know "spirit" can also be used for "soul", I believe keeping them distinct is much less confusing all round.Jac3510 wrote:On the flip side, the soul (we really should say "spirit" if we want to be technical) isn't going to be a complex organism at all.
Cartesian dualists generally make a distinction between the mind and body, believing the mind to be synonymous for the soul. Thomistic dualists (which I more align myself with) believe mind processes are carried out by the physical body, but they are grounded upon the soul which controls the thinking.Mastermind wrote:Is the mind part of the spirit though? or is it a separate entity?
As noted previously, it sort of depends on your presumptions about the make up of the human being. I don't really buy into the distinction that you make . . .Kurieuo wrote:Actually, to be technical I think "soul" is more appropriate, as many do not consider "soul" to be synonymous for "spirit." I myself believe there to be a distinction between soul (i.e., our essense), and our spirit which I more understand as a "spiritual body" attached to soul. Although I know "spirit" can also be used for "soul", I believe keeping them distinct is much less confusing all round.Jac3510 wrote:On the flip side, the soul (we really should say "spirit" if we want to be technical) isn't going to be a complex organism at all.
Kurieuo.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
I'm not sure dictionaries really have the authority to set a particular definition for terms used in deep philosophical issues on metaphysics . Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.Jac3510 wrote:As for the language itself, a "soul" can refer to both the whole person or only to the material (reference). On the flip side, a "spirit," in relationship to humans, can only refer to the immaterial, immortal part of the self (reference). If, then, "soul" is synonymous with "spirit" on the immaterial level, but "spirit" is not synonymous with "soul" at the "big picture" level, I'd say we should use the terminology I suggested
Regardless, that part is just semantics.
Eh, I mention them because the actual purpose of a dictionary is to define a word's semantic range. Ideally, I would use Oxford's or some other equivelant, but I thought that would be easy and get the point across. I just wanted to show that the reasoning of using my particular terminology is based on "range of meaning" as defined by english dictionaries. In other words, the argument for using those words are based on adequacy. "Soul" can encompass "spirit," where as the reverse is not true. Of course, that doesn't hold in your model, but you make distinctions that I don't, at this time, at least.K wrote:I'm not sure dictionaries really have the authority to set a particular definition for terms used in deep philosophical issues on metaphysics .
This is what I was referring to. Words have ranges of meaning. You see the qualification you have to make? You have to differentiate between a "living soul" and just a "soul." That, it seems to me, is going to open a really ugly can of worms, especially given what "living" can mean!K wrote:Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.
I agree that the spirit is/has its own "substance." The Bible does teach that we have some sort of spirit bodies, and that these are different from our resurrected bodies (one major reason I reject the concept of soul sleep). Of course, "substance" here is non-physical, as you noted. That should go without saying.K wrote:I would disagree that "spirit" is an immortal part of the self, rather I understand the soul to be immortal. And if by immaterial you mean non-physical, then I would agree the spirit is immaterial (as is the soul), but I believe the spirit has its own bodily substance that is spirit (unlike the soul which has no "bodily" substance). Although no doubt a large part of our disagreement perhaps lies with semantics, we do appear to have very different understandings of what is actually involved.
Well, again, remember that I don't make the distinction between the soul and spirit that you do. In your language, I'd say the soul died. In mine, I'd say the spirit died. By "died" I mean "in broken relationship to God." I discussed this concept thoroughly in this thread with ttoews.K wrote:Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.
I certainly agree that it runs deep. You'll have to show me, though, where any conflicts arise, as I've not seen any. I've not read broadly on the subject, so, of course, I could be wrong. But, at this stage in my studies, I see no reason to make a distinction. Against this, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that man is two part, not three part. *shrug*K wrote:The Christian theological implications of saying the spirit is equivilant to the immaterial soul runs very deep and I've discovered touches on much theology surrounding the after-life, salvation, the fall, sin, and many other doctrines. I also just want to say that my beliefs I detail specifically on this area are not something I'm just speaking out on without much reading, thought, and development, but they are something I have read into and refined over time (though I still admit I could be be easily wrong on many things ).
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
I believe the soul remains the same always—it never changes. What does change is whether or not the soul possesses a body wherein its capacities can function. Soul and body combined together both produce a "living soul," that is a soul that can interact with the world. Genesis 2:7 supports this: "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 soul." Here we see "body" + "breath of life" (i.e., soul [or spirit as you'd define it]) = "living soul."Jac3510 wrote:This is what I was referring to. Words have ranges of meaning. You see the qualification you have to make? You have to differentiate between a "living soul" and just a "soul." That, it seems to me, is going to open a really ugly can of worms, especially given what "living" can mean!K wrote:Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.
I read portions of your exchange, and you say the relationship between the Son and Father was severed, and this is what you call "spiritual death." Now let's turn to Adam and Eve. God said to them: "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when [or, "in the day" (KJV)] you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen 2:17) Now allow me compare between loosing the capacity to experience God, and loosing the capacity to physically see. If I become physically blind, then "I" don't physically die—I simply loose the capacity to see. In the same way, if one looses the capacity to see God, they don't spiritually die—they simply loose the capacity to see God. Thus, your idea of spiritual death is not strong enough to represent Adam and Eve dying.Jac3510 wrote:Well, again, remember that I don't make the distinction between the soul and spirit that you do. In your language, I'd say the soul died. In mine, I'd say the spirit died. By "died" I mean "in broken relationship to God." I discussed this concept thoroughly in this thread with ttoews.K wrote:Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.