barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/04/84)
[]
I may be breaking a tradition by posting something to net.religion
that is unlikely to offend anyone, but I have a question for everyone.
Many religions (though not all) have beliefs about what happens
to our souls after death, but I've heard far less about where the various
religions think souls come from. I would be curious to hear from peoples
of all faiths, a description of what their religion believes about this.
To start things off, I will summarize the five answers to this question
I am familiar with. I would ask anyone responding to please indicate
whether their response states a personal belief or the official position
of some religious body (or both). If official, please state what religion
or sect's beliefs you are describing.
1) Souls are created at (about) the time the body is created,
and have no prior existance.
2) Souls are eternal in both directions.
3) Souls are part of an all-encompassing oversoul before incarnation.
4) There is no such thing as a soul.
5) No official position.
- I am only an egg - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
SOURCE: ST7891berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (12/07/84)
> [] > > I may be breaking a tradition by posting something to net.religion > that is unlikely to offend anyone, but I have a question for everyone. > Many religions (though not all) have beliefs about what happens > to our souls after death, but I've heard far less about where the various > religions think souls come from. I would be curious to hear from peoples > of all faiths, a description of what their religion believes about this. From a Jewish perspective, I would say your question is meaningless. Space and time are the limits of the physical universe. Without a body as a referance point, how can the consept of time exist for the soul? Think of it this way... If you can understand the fact that a soul has no location in space, why should it have one in time? michab
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/08/84)
My personal belief is (perhaps) unusual. It is a variant
of the first on your list. It is based on my perception/concept of
the soul as the essence of an individual's selfhood/personality.
As such I believe that it *grows* along with the body, and in a
similar manner. (See the discussion in net.philosophy on 'Uploading
Persons to New Hardware').
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
{trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesenlip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (12/14/84)
In article <1007@aecom.UUCP> berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) writes: >Space and time are the limits of the physical universe. Without >a body as a referance point, how can the consept of time exist >for the soul? >Think of it this way... If you can understand the fact that a soul >has no location in space, why should it have one in time? > > michab Well, if the soul has no location in time and space, what evidence do you have that it exists? All evidence depends on stimuli from time and space. If you say that no evidence is needed and that faith only is sufficient for a belief in a soul, then you are defending the position of blind faith. Do you really think it is wise to believe in something if there is no evidence to suggest that it is true or that it exists? If you do, then when I tell you that the true god is called Fred, then you are committed to believing me. - John Lipinski
walker@noscvax.UUCP (Janet M. Walker) (12/14/84)
>From a Jewish perspective, I would say your question is meaningless. >Space and time are the limits of the physical universe. Without >a body as a referance point, how can the consept of time exist >for the soul? >Think of it this way... If you can understand the fact that a soul >has no location in space, why should it have one in time? > > michab I must certainly agree with this! In fact I think that anyone from any major religion must have some writings which confirm this. It also makes a good explanation why there may be some aspects of spiritual thinking which material science has yet to comprehend. Of course I do believe that scientific investigation is as necessary as spiritual. The two MUST agree - or the scientific explanation is still incomplete (or false) or the religious is (at least in part) superstition - or both. -- Janet M. Walker MILNET/ARPANET: walker@nosc UUCP: [ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax]!sdcsvax!noscvax!walker ---------- "O Friend! In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love." ---------------------------------------------------------------------
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/29/84)
In <715@noscvax.UUCP>, Janet Walker, a Baha'i, says, > >From a Jewish perspective, I would say your question is meaningless. > >Space and time are the limits of the physical universe. Without > >a body as a referance point, how can the consept of time exist > >for the soul? > >Think of it this way... If you can understand the fact that a soul > >has no location in space, why should it have one in time? > > > > michab > I must certainly agree with this! In fact I think that anyone from > any major religion must have some writings which confirm this. Here is solid proof for my claim that Baha'i is not eclectic. In fact, it seems to do no more than reconcile Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Any such statement about the "soul" is in conflict with Buddhism, which denies the reality of the soul. Roughly the same can be said for Taoism. Furthermore, I am not familiar with any Hindu scriptures which would suggest anything of the sort, nor scriptures or tales of any other polytheistic religion. The Baha'is are free to walk their path of monotheistic synthesis, but to call it "eclectic" is an absurdity. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.