What is a soul?

No idea. That is kinda like asking "What will you learn when you learn more than you know now?"If there is an afterlife then of course, our understanding of reality will change. How it will change is impossible to say right now since for now we have only a sample of one reality. I hope though that if there is an afterlife it will be filled with answers to Question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I realise my question always had the potential to be a bit on the dumb side, but I’m struggling to articulate what I’m trying to understand.To the uninitiated onlooker, many of the views you express appear to be very close to agnosticism, yet you clearly hold deeply felt faith-based beliefs. It’s tough for a non-believer like me to get my head round this. All my instincts tell me that a significant part of faith-based belief arises out of the sentiments you expressed in Message 104, so I struggle to see past the possible cause and effect - people want to believe these things so badly, they are prepared to believe almost anything to keep that hope alive.You may not want to answer this question, but I’d like to ask it anyway. Would what you expressed in Message 104 be enough for you if something did endure beyond your physical demise, or would you also need the existence of the god you believe in?

Imagine a continuum of belief, a spectrum of belief. At one end of that spectrum you might find those theists who are absolutely sure they know their beliefs are true. Way over at the other end of the spectrum are the atheists who absolutely know their beliefs are true.We could say that one group is represented by Gamma Rays while the other is ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) Waves.I am somewhere on that spectrum, closer to the Absolute Theist end than to the mid point.I have my beliefs. Personally I am pretty sure that they are right. Honesty though forces me to admit that I could be wrong.At the mid point we would find the Absolute Agnostics. They are uncertain about their beliefs, and folk will fall somewhere along the spectrum. Whether they are classified as Atheist, Agnostic or Theist would depend on their position relative to those three points on the spectrum. I really don't see that as something worth worrying about. If there is an afterlife it will be what it is. My desires and wants do not get to determine reality. I often wish that were not the case but it is.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I guess this thread has more or less run its course now, but it did get to the century mark, so I’m happy with that.Anyway, I hope if you get your afterlife, it’s all you would wish it to be.

How about a two dimensional space with axes of certainty and degree of theism:Do people generally agree with these placements? And where would people place themselves on this graph?--Percy

Looks okay. The key thing to remember is that religion is really personal. While you may be able to place different religions or sects on the chart, in reality what you would see is not a dot but rather a halo. Some sects such as the Non-denominational churches might show up as a small circle showing little difference between the individual members whereas the Episcopal Church might be an oval that covered almost all points on the graph.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Interesting idea here from you and jar. I am thinking the placements would be subject to some relativity. I can't imagine any theist denoms consenting to be termed 'uncertain' or why bother with the distinctions? In the same way maybe athiests would not like being called unsure, or it might just throw them back into the 'agnostic' category. And what about the 'non-denoms' who perhaps top them all with claims of truth? Do you consider them the Evangelicals?Any thoughts of a thread? Where more may see this post? It may be neat for different perspectives.

Thanks for mentioning this. If you're charting the placement of a group you really do have to take into account the range of beliefs and certainty allowed individual members. The Anglican/Episcopalian and Unitarian groups would appear as large ovals indeed while Jehovah's Witness and foot-washing Baptist groups would appear as much more focused points.___(title supplied by Emily Dickinson)

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And I like Jar's idea that the points should be regions. Think of the "certainty" axis as less about degree of certainty and more about the number of things a denomination is certain about. For example, evangelicals and Catholics are probably roughly equally certain about things like the passion and the resurrection, but about things like evolution, the age of the earth, the great flood and so forth the evangelicals are very certain, the Catholics maybe not so much.--Percy

I would think that both axis in the end are about certainty. While one might be related to the number of things one is certain of, the other would likely be how certain you are about any of them. For example in the Anglican Communion there are Bishops that question whether or not there was a Virgin Birth, who are openly Homosexual, who not only believe that women should speak in church but that they should be ordained and in fact rise to one of the highest positions in the Church.However even within the Anglican communion there is a variety of view points on each and every such item. There are members of the same communion who consider each of the above examples heresy, who support those position and just about every point in between.In addition, there will be a range of conviction on each issue that will stretch from absolute surety to total uncertainty.One of the key points about Anglicans is that regardless of ones opinion on any theological topic, it is likely that there is at least one other Anglican that holds a similar position. (but only on that one topic )

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Once, whilst watching a TV documentary regarding controversies surrounding the resurrection, I saw an Anglican theologian express the view that not only was it unnecessary for Anglicans to now believe in the literal resurrection, it was no longer necessary to even believe in god.

Im suspecting that what he meant was that God exists despite our belief or non belief of His existence. I have known a few atheists who claim to be theologians, however. There is a vast difference between knowing about someone and knowing someone.Getting back to the concept of soul, I might ask the question:Do souls make any sense without God? If so, what are they? Energy without a corporeal body???

What does one have to do with the other?If there is a God and there are souls, what makes you think He/She/It has any interest in them?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yeah that old canard about knowing someone does get trotted out pretty regularly. It is also disproven about as regularly.No one here has explained how the Know God or Know Jesus beyond the unsupported assertion that they do and that to claim they don't is unreasonable or illogical.Well repeating claims does not add to their validity.Humans really are not very good at "Knowing" someone. This is shown at almost every divorce hearing, almost every crime trial. Folks are shocked that sweet little Lizzie, who does not even like the slice-n-dice, would do such a thing.Many Christians claim to Know GOD, but do they? Souls don't make sense, period.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm inclined to think that if one doesn't accept that Christ is God incarnate, then they are free to call themselves Christian but I'd be inclined to think that it would only be in the cultural sense. I'm Anglican by the way.As for the original question of what is a soul. I'm 63 years old. On my wall is a picture of a rock n roll band I was in at age 20. I look at that 20 year old kid and realize that I'm still that same 20 year old inside. My body has aged, I've gained maturity and experience, acquired knowledge etc but I'm still the same "I" that I was 43 years ago. I don't seem to be aging the way the rest of the physical world around me is. My consciousness, my essence or my soul, whatever you want to call it, can use time to measure and understand change, but it seems to me that it is more of an observer than a particapant.This certainly isn't scientific but it is my perception of life so far. Take it for what it's worth.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.