Nature of the soul (split from: When did God put the soul in humans during evolution?)

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Your opinion is noted and worthless. It is based on the premise that "academia" belongs solely to Science. Nonsense.

It is based on the perspective that religion should be experiential rather than cerebral. I value the academic study of the humanities - the idea that academia belongs solely to science was assumed by you. But i would not include religion in the humanities. 

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

What is wrong with laymen vehemently arguing a point with a person educated in the subject matter? Let's say that I took my layman's understanding of Physics to the Physics forum (like that would ever happen), and then I told Swansont that he had no idea of what he was talking about. What kind of fool would I look like? Well, that is the kind of fool some members in this thread looked like.

The difference being that science is backed up with mathematical models tested against nature. Religion is not: when tested against observation, it has consistently failed . It's value, if any, lies elsewhere.

The Pope doesn't necessarily know more about the practice of Christianity than some pauper who found value in the forgiveness offered by Christ and learned to spread that kindness - unless all you care about are appearances, then yes, i'm sure the Pope could name all the saints and prayers of compassion, even while staying silent during the holocaust.

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Compassion is not the subject of this thread, and since you admittedly don't care (underlined by me) what the subject is, you are off-topic. Your inability to discipline your mind to the subject at hand is one of the reasons why I do not relish discussion with you.

I raised compassion as i thought the idea that its study and its practice are different things, with value mainly in the latter, would be intuitive. This was to give an intuitive idea that the study of religion is useless without the practice.  The split off topic, as far as i can discern, is what Biblical scripture has to say about the Soul. I thought you might value another perspective - obviously i was mistaken.

No one is forcing you to discuss anything with me - just stop replying to me if you're getting nothing out of it.

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But i would not include religion in the humanities. 

Oh, I would. (But that might just be because it was included in my humanities course!) It is a part of human culture and experience. And, has profound links to art, history and language.

 

[Prometheus]

Just now, Strange said:

Oh, I would. (But that might just be because it was included in my humanities course!) It is a part of human culture and experience. And, has profound links to art, history and language.

That's very true. But there is a difference in the study of Christian mythology say (which i thoroughly enjoy,  at the moment studying the mixed Pagan and Christian themes in the Arthurian cycle), and the daily practice of Christianity. I think that's a big distinction. 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

That's very true. But there is a difference in the study of Christian mythology say (which i thoroughly enjoy,  at the moment studying the mixed Pagan and Christian themes in the Arthurian cycle), and the daily practice of Christianity. I think that's a big distinction. 

Absolutely. (Some of the best theologians are atheists.)

In that sense, I agree completely: religion is not part of the humanities but the study of religion is. (The same could be said of painting or sport.)

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

...religion is not part of the humanities but the study of religion is.

Nice way of putting it.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

15 hours ago, Strange said:

Philosophy and religion are not philosophy science. I would expect a "philosopher" to know that.

A hand is not Science either, but that does not stop Science from studying it. I would expect that a moderator would know that.

People in this forum have even used math to try to validate, or invalidate, the "God" concept. YodaP comes to mind. In this thread, evolution was brought in -- by the wannabe science guys -- not by John Bauer. Evolution is a study in Science, isn't it?

 

4 hours ago, Strange said:

I'll continue to point out your nonsense when I spot it (I do not usually read your posts as they rarely have any meaningful content).

If you do not read my posts, how could you possibly know if they have "meaningful content"? I challenge you to state in a few sentences what John Bauer was talking about and why that would interest me. I doubt that you can do it because you, along with everyone else, are clueless as to the actual topic. I'll give you a hint -- I study consciousness.

 

Quote

I have spent decades relying on the correct application of formal logic.

So asking someone to prove a negative is the "correct application of formal logic"? Keep studying, and you may want to review your ideas on the "strawman" concept.

I normally don't challenge you when you state something ridiculous because it is hard to do without being rude, but also because I am ever mindful of your position as moderator. You need to be respected. But when I just walk away, you apparently believe that you won or that you were correct. This is not necessarily the case. Now it does not matter anymore.

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Oh, I would. (But that might just be because it was included in my humanities course!) It is a part of human culture and experience. And, has profound links to art, history and language.

And consciousness. Religion has been studying consciousness for tens of thousands of years, maybe a hundred thousand years.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Absolutely. (Some of the best theologians are atheists.)

That is right. A person does not have to be religious to study the concepts behind the stories. I would venture to state that there were no theologians in this thread, with the possible exception of John Bauer, which would be why no one understood that he was talking about the concepts that are behind the stories. I understood it because I study consciousness -- not a theologian -- just a philosopher.

Gee

[Gees]

Prometheus;

 

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It is based on the perspective that religion should be experiential rather than cerebral. 

You might want to study Hume. He lived many centuries ago, is a well respected philosopher, and had a lot to say about "should be". Of course he called it "ought to be" because that was the terminology used in his time; you can find his work in Wiki under "is and ought".

In a nutshell, he explained that people will take what "is" and replace it with what "ought to be" so they can always be right. imo

 

Quote

I value the academic study of the humanities - the idea that academia belongs solely to science was assumed by you. But i would not include religion in the humanities. 

No. The only thing I assumed was that when you used the word "pretence", you meant pretense. This is what you stated: "All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science."

"Pretense at academia" means that they are pretending to be academic. It is not real, whereas you validate with Science which you believe to be real. 

Do we need another English lesson?

 

Quote

The difference being that science is backed up with mathematical models tested against nature. Religion is not: when tested against observation, it has consistently failed . It's value, if any, lies elsewhere.

I am not sure what you are observing. Religion has been around for tens of thousands of years all over the world as validated by archeology and still permeates cultures and societies today. If that is failure, what would be success?

One of it's values lies in the study of consciousness.

 

Quote

The split off topic, as far as i can discern, is what Biblical scripture has to say about the Soul. I thought you might value another perspective - obviously i was mistaken.

Of course I would value another perspective, but it would have to be on topic. We already discussed this in another thread, and I did not find that you had more to offer on the subject of souls.

 

Quote

No one is forcing you to discuss anything with me - just stop replying to me if you're getting nothing out of it.

Oh, but it is so much fun to watch you build your reputation on nonsense. Arguing with me is always good for an up-vote.

Gee

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

No. The only thing I assumed was that when you used the word "pretence", you meant pretense. This is what you stated: "All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science."

"Pretense at academia" means that they are pretending to be academic. It is not real, whereas you validate with Science which you believe to be real. 

Do we need another English lesson?

Apparently you do: i'm British so i spell it pretence. I mention science because loads of religious people try to hijack the apparatus of science to validate existing beliefs. I'm sure you have heard of Creationists, for instance. 

 

5 hours ago, Gees said:

In a nutshell, he explained that people will take what "is" and replace it with what "ought to be" so they can always be right. imo

Except i'm not trying to masquerade an ought for an is. That's why i explicitly said should, so that everyone (except you apparently), would realise that i'm expressing an opinion. I'm not alone in this view, as counting the number of angels on the head of a pin has become a metaphor for precisely this kind of pretence. 

Honestly, i'm not trying to to wail on you, but if you can't even distinguish when someone is expressing an opinion rather than stating a fact when they have used the word should, then how can anyone take anything you say seriously?

 

5 hours ago, Gees said:

I am not sure what you are observing. Religion has been around for tens of thousands of years all over the world as validated by archeology and still permeates cultures and societies today. If that is failure, what would be success?

And in those thousands of years religion has been wrong on the age of the universe, orbital mechanics, the origin of man and species - the list is pretty long. Religion has so clearly failed on empirical matters that only religious extremists consult scripture instead of the evidence for things like the shape of the Earth, or whether vaccines work.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

One of it's values lies in the study of consciousness.

As a practicing Buddhist, i would agree - sort of. Meditation gives great experiential insight into consciousness - but certainly not as an academic study. You can read every book ever written by meditation and know nothing about the experience of your own mind.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Oh, but it is so much fun to watch you build your reputation on nonsense. Arguing with me is always good for an up-vote.

Whatever floats your boat.

[dimreepr]

Congratulations Gee, you've managed to mildly irk a practising Buddhist and piss everyone else, right, off. 

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Oh, but it is so much fun to watch you build your reputation on nonsense. Arguing with me is always good for an up-vote.

Gee

And condescension is always good for a down vote.   

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

In this thread, evolution was brought in -- by the wannabe science guys -- not by John Bauer. Evolution is a study in Science, isn't it?

Technically it was brought in by Vexen in the original thread, to which John Bauer responded (much of which was off-topic, so the discussion was split), but JB did include a discussion of evolution in the OP.

So I don't understand the basis for claiming that evolution was "brought in -- by the wannabe science guys" It was there from the start.

And evolution being a study in science — and thus likely incompatible with a religious discussion — is part of the conversation in the original thread.

[koti]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Congratulations Gee, you've managed to mildly irk a practising Buddhist and piss everyone else, right, off. 

Looks like Prometheus passed with flying colors and he is now a level 99 Lama. I’d be spitting fire if in his place, good job Prometheus.

[Moontanman]

On 7/30/2019 at 4:03 PM, Gees said:

 

Gee

 

What next Gee, shall we discuss the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and you win by default because I can't prove there are no angels? You cannot argue nonsense that cannot be investigated via the scientific method, by definition it is not to be believed or given credence if it cannot pass that test. I have seen this bollocks argued  over and over nearly to infinity, to quote Aron Ra "If you can't show it you don't know it" Nonsense deserves to be ridiculed as do those that pervey fairy tales as fact... 

[Prometheus]

17 hours ago, koti said:

Looks like Prometheus passed with flying colors and he is now a level 99 Lama. I’d be spitting fire if in his place, good job Prometheus.

 

[koti]

20 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 

Dude you replied to me with the same clip 3 years ago in some religious thread, remember? You can send it to me every week though, I love it! 

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Dude you replied to me with the same clip 3 years ago in some religious thread, remember? You can send it to me every week though, I love it! 

Hm. It's hard to keep track when one occupies such lofty planes of existence. Hang on, here comes level 100...

[koti]

18 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Hm. It's hard to keep track when one occupies such lofty planes of existence. Hang on, here comes level 100...

I hope you never make it to the last level as this would inevitably strip you of your cool. Your image as the guy from the clip in my head is now solidified. Teach me master.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

Teach me master.

There is no level 100, you can try but 99 is all you'll get... 

[koti]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There is no level 100, you can try but 99 is all you'll get... 

Like my IQ, what a coincidence. 

[Gees]

Prometheus;

 

On 7/31/2019 at 5:41 AM, Prometheus said:

Apparently you do: i'm British so i spell it pretence.

My apologies. I am American, and we call our language English, but it is really American. You might want to notify spell-check and correct that problem as "pretence" is underlined as a misspelled word.

None of this changes your statement regarding "pretence of academia". You are stating that Religions pretend to academics, which means that you are denying that theology is an academic study, or you are saying that it is nonsense -- which is an ignorant thing to say.

 

Quote

I mention science because loads of religious people try to hijack the apparatus of science to validate existing beliefs.

And loads of science people try to destroy religious beliefs. What is your point? Arguing Science v Religion is like arguing apples and oranges, it is a stupid waste of time spawned from an archaic false dichotomy called Monism v Dualism. 

 

Quote

I'm sure you have heard of Creationists, for instance. 

I have heard of a lot of things. Did you have an on-topic point? Or are you wandering again?

 

Quote

Except i'm not trying to masquerade an ought for an is.

When you say "should be", you are talking about what you want something to be -- you are not talking about facts or reality.

 

Quote

That's why i explicitly said should, so that everyone (except you apparently), would realise that i'm expressing an opinion.

This is a Philosophy forum. You know how Science guys get real particular about the word "theory"? Well philosophers get that same way with the word "opinion". Unless you are talking about the other use of the word opinion; you know, where people say that "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one"? But that kind of opinion is worthless.

 

Quote

I'm not alone in this view, as counting the number of angels on the head of a pin has become a metaphor for precisely this kind of pretence. 

Well as long as you are not alone in your opinions, you must be right. You should ask Strange which formal logic applies in this situation.

But what does Hume have to do with angels? Are you wandering again?

 

Quote

Honestly, i'm not trying to to wail on you, but if you can't even distinguish when someone is expressing an opinion rather than stating a fact when they have used the word should, then how can anyone take anything you say seriously?

Since no one in this thread has thus far even recognized the topic, then what would be the point of trying to be serious?

 

Quote

And in those thousands of years religion has been wrong on the age of the universe, orbital mechanics, the origin of man and species - the list is pretty long.

You are moving goal posts. You did not state that Religion was "wrong", you stated that it had failed. Are you wandering again?

 

Quote

Religion has so clearly failed on empirical matters that only religious extremists consult scripture instead of the evidence for things like the shape of the Earth, or whether vaccines work.

Religion is not a study of "empirical matters", but it is interesting to note that Copernicus compared Islam's ideas about the Universe with the Christian ideas about the Universe and these comparisons helped to lead him to a much better understanding, which he put in a book that has been referred to as the book that nobody read. Apparently, back in his day, everyone agreeing with you made you right -- and made him wrong.

What does this thread have to do with "the shape of the Earth" or "vaccines"? Are you wandering -- again?

 

Quote

As a practicing Buddhist, i would agree - sort of. Meditation gives great experiential insight into consciousness - but certainly not as an academic study. You can read every book ever written by meditation and know nothing about the experience of your own mind.

Meditation is meditation -- it is not a study of consciousness. 

 

Quote

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

Oh yeah. Reading your posts is a lot like watching a butterfly flit through a flower garden. As long as I am not trying to learn anything, it is very relaxing.

Gee

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

None of this changes your statement regarding "pretence of academia". You are stating that Religions pretend to academics, which means that you are denying that theology is an academic study, or you are saying that it is nonsense -- which is an ignorant thing to say.

The academic study of religion has proven useless as a tool for modelling the universe. It is also useless as a spiritual practice. The only value i see it having, as i discussed with Strange, is as a humanity, alongside literature and such.

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Well as long as you are not alone in your opinions, you must be right.

I'm just being honest in stating these are opinions. I don't understand why you pour such scorn upon honesty.

 

 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

You are moving goal posts. You did not state that Religion was "wrong", you stated that it had failed. Are you wandering again?

 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Religion is not a study of "empirical matters",

Now you're confusing  ought for is. Religions have made many empirical claims through the years, and still do so. I agree that religion shouldn't be a study of empirical matters, but the unfortunate truth is that for many people it is, like the numerous creationists in the USA  (between 20-50%, depending on how the question is posed). 

 

But if the validity of scripture is not part of the OP, why don't you tell me what you think the topic of this off-topic split  is, so i don't tread off the path again.

 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Meditation is meditation -- it is not a study of consciousness. 

There are various forms of meditation. Vipassana meditation in Buddhism, in particular, is a study of consciousness but not in the academic sense. 

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Reading your posts is a lot like watching a butterfly flit through a flower garden. 

Not sure that's meant as a compliment, but i'll definitely take it as one.  I'd say reading your posts is like bouncing a ball off a wall, but instead of going anywhere sensible the ball just tries to whack you in the face.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

On 7/31/2019 at 7:45 AM, swansont said:

Technically it was brought in by Vexen in the original thread, to which John Bauer responded (much of which was off-topic, so the discussion was split

I have read a few of Vexen's threads and not found them to be of interest. Vexen seems to have an average understanding of Religion, so I found nothing close to theology is his posts. I did not read the "original" thread, but if John Bauer posted there, I will give it a look see as there may be some information there. Obviously I can not talk to John Bauer, as he has left the forum.

I am also a little curious about why John's posts were thought to be "off-topic", since I saw no indication that members knew what he was talking about.

 

Quote

, but JB did include a discussion of evolution in the OP.

No. John included a denial in the OP, not a discussion. There is a difference.

 

Quote

So I don't understand the basis for claiming that evolution was "brought in -- by the wannabe science guys" It was there from the start.

This is what John wrote in the OP:

"Your question regarded the human soul, which you described as "the spiritual or immaterial" part of us that is supposedly "immortal," and you were wondering when that was "imparted to humans during the course of evolution." The very first thing I would have to be clear about is that I reject this Platonic or Cartesian anthropology as a widely believed yet utterly unbiblical tradition (never mind its complete lack of any scientific merit)."

This is what John wrote later in the thread:

"And where is evolution described in the Bible?  
It's not. Evolution pertains to science and natural history, whereas the Bible is about theology and redemptive history."
 

If you read the underlined statements, it is clear that John Bauer was not challenging Science and evolution. I don't know if the other members have a reading problem or a comprehension problem, but John did not wish to discuss Science's evolution. Other members would not drop it.

 

Quote

And evolution being a study in science — and thus likely incompatible with a religious discussion — is part of the conversation in the original thread.

There is so much wrong with the above statement, that I don't even know where to start. 

1) Evolution does not have to be biological evolution, nor is it limited to the start of the Universe.

2) Archeology studies the evolution of cultures and societies.

3) Historians study the evolution of language, art, agriculture, and the development of skills like building, mining, and tanning leather, etc. 

4) Philosophy and Psychology study the evolution of consciousness and mind. 

5) People study the evolution of the planet by comparing ancient texts of rivers, continents, mountains, etc.

6) When studying ancient societies, a lot of the information about them is in religious texts.

 7) The Bible is probably one of the most studied books in history for it's information on some kind of evolution.

 

This is the part of John Bauer's post that I was interested in:

"There are two—and only two—federal representatives of humanity in the covenant relationship between God and us. Adam was the first, in whom we are fallen, because nobody before him was a federal representative of humanity before God. And Christ was the second (and last), in whom we are redeemed, because nobody after him was a federal representative."

 

These two "federal representatives" of humanity mark distinct advances in consciousness. That is what I wanted to talk about -- consciousness. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden have been studied to death and the general consensus in Psychology is that this story is representative of the development of the rational aspect of mind, (or the soul) which differentiates us from other species. It has a lot of support. There is also a literal understanding that Eve represents the fall of the "goddess" and priestesses, and associates it with the story of Lilith, who was very powerful at that time. This is where we developed a patriarchal "God" and marks a distinct change between the ancient goddess mother image to the father image. Like all good metaphors, it is both literal and figurative and has many layers of understanding.

Many years ago, I noted that the Old Testament was about an invisible "God" who concerned himself with physical things like war, health issues, laws, government, etc., but the New Testament was about a physical "God", human, who concerned himself with spiritual (metaphysical) things. This dichotomy interested me as there is a possibility that this is also representative of a distinct advance in consciousness. Yes, there are other nonreligious studies that suggest a change in human consciousness about 500 years before Jesus. But John Bauer's post was the first that I found that compares the two. I would have liked to know where he got his information.

According to Wiki: "In metaphysics, the concept of "Soul" may be equated with that of "Mind" in order to refer to the consciousness and intellect of the individual." According to me, when you read the word "God", if you think "consciousness", you will find that it makes a lot more sense in context. Of course in order to do this, you have to have an abstract mind capable of considering "God" without picturing "God".

Gee

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Gees said:

 I have read a few of Vexen's threads and not found them to be of interest. Vexen seems to have an average understanding of Religion, so I found nothing close to theology is his posts.

Which is irrelevant, since the quality of someone's posts is not at issue.

Quote

I did not read the "original" thread, but if John Bauer posted there, I will give it a look see as there may be some information there. Obviously I can not talk to John Bauer, as he has left the forum.

I am also a little curious about why John's posts were thought to be "off-topic", since I saw no indication that members knew what he was talking about.

The topic of the original thread is quoted in the OP. However, much of JB's discussion has nothing to do with that, and instead is a discussion about the nature of the soul, in his interpretation, and on other subjects. There's only about two sentences that pertain to the original thread, and there was much followup discussion that focused on the off-topic material. That's why it was split.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

 No. John included a denial in the OP, not a discussion. There is a difference.

I was being generous. The denial was in the interpretation of the soul, and he admits it was a personal interpretation, which makes it all irrelevant. Respondents do not get to redefine terms given by a thread starter, in order to advance their own agenda. They need to start a new thread of their own. Since he did not, it was done for him.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

 This is what John wrote later in the thread:

"And where is evolution described in the Bible?  
It's not. Evolution pertains to science and natural history, whereas the Bible is about theology and redemptive history."
 

If you read the underlined statements, it is clear that John Bauer was not challenging Science and evolution. I don't know if the other members have a reading problem or a comprehension problem, but John did not wish to discuss Science's evolution. Other members would not drop it.

And that doesn't matter because it was posted in a thread where evolution had been introduced. Vexen started the thread, meaning they got to define its scope. Nobody responding gets to take the thread over and redefine that based on their own views.

The responses have to be interpreted in the context of having been posted in the original thread, and evolution was very much a part of that discussion.

Quote

There is so much wrong with the above statement, that I don't even know where to start. 

1) Evolution does not have to be biological evolution, nor is it limited to the start of the Universe.

2) Archeology studies the evolution of cultures and societies.

3) Historians study the evolution of language, art, agriculture, and the development of skills like building, mining, and tanning leather, etc. 

4) Philosophy and Psychology study the evolution of consciousness and mind. 

5) People study the evolution of the planet by comparing ancient texts of rivers, continents, mountains, etc.

The context given in the OP rules these out, but you admit to not having read it. So this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Quote

6) When studying ancient societies, a lot of the information about them is in religious texts.

 7) The Bible is probably one of the most studied books in history for it's information on some kind of evolution.

!

Moderator Note

You are free to open up a new thread and back these claims up.

As for the rest, this isn't a negotiation. Stick to the topic of this thread, and stop trying to litigate matters.

 

And TO ALL: the sniping can stop. Implications about others' intelligence being low, etc. is all off-topic. 

 

[Moontanman]

Does no one here actually read what the bible says about the soul? I may not be a biblical scholar but at one time I was religious, a christian, but always a "doubting Thomas" eventually the doubts become far too thick to be ignored but that is independent of the OT. If you want to discuss this we have to show some evidence of a god at the very least much less a soul...

Yes Gees I am calling you out, I ate my bowl of stupid this morning and I am ready to digest it thoroughly...  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible

Quote

Historical developments[edit]

The traditional concept of an immaterial and immortal soul distinct from the body was not found in Judaism before the Babylonian exile,^[1] but developed as a result of interaction with Persian and Hellenistic philosophies.^[2] Accordingly, the Hebrew word נֶ֫פֶשׁ, nephesh, although translated as "soul" in some older English Bibles, actually has a meaning closer to "living being". Nephesh was rendered in the Septuagint as ψυχή (psūchê), the Greek word for soul. The New Testament also uses the word ψυχή, but with the Hebrew meaning and not the Greek.^[3]

Relation to Greek "psyche"[edit]

The only Hebrew word traditionally translated "soul" (nephesh) in English language Bibles refers to a living, breathing conscious body, rather than to an immortal soul.^[5]In the New Testament, the Greek word traditionally translated "soul" (ψυχή) "psyche", has substantially the same meaning as the Hebrew, without reference to an immortal soul. In the Greek Septuagent psyche is used to translate each instance of nephesh.^[6]

In some translations or interpretations the soul is nothing more than air, the breath of life, once that air stopped moving in and out of the body it was considered dead. The soul having left the body. 

None of this makes any sense in the light of science, no evidence for a soul exists that I am aware of, and when "doG" put it in humans is a nonsensical question. Could we rationally argue about when during evolution did "doG" put eyes in Humans? At the very least we know humans have eyes... 

[Gees]

Swansont;

On 8/2/2019 at 6:22 AM, swansont said:

Which is irrelevant, since the quality of someone's posts is not at issue.

Your response is irrelevant. I was not talking about the "quality" of Vexen's post, I was talking about the perspective. It is obvious that Vexen has not studied theology; it is just as obvious that John Bauer has, which is why I used the term "theology".

 

Quote

The topic of the original thread is quoted in the OP.

I read the original thread. This is the question that started the "original" thread: "I was wondering when was the soul imparted into humans during the course of evolution?" John Bauer answered that question. Then he went on to make it clear that this was not a challenge to Science.

 

Quote

However, much of JB's discussion has nothing to do with that, and instead is a discussion about the nature of the soul, in his interpretation, and on other subjects.

John Bauer's discussion had everything to do with that. You just didn't know what he was talking about.

 

Quote

There's only about two sentences that pertain to the original thread, and there was much followup discussion that focused on the off-topic material. That's why it was split.

Since you obviously did not know what John Bauer was talking about, how could you possibly know it was off-topic?

 

Quote

I was being generous.

You were being disingenuous.

 

Quote

The denial was in the interpretation of the soul, and he admits it was a personal interpretation, which makes it all irrelevant.

No. The denial was in a challenge to Science and evolution. Requests to define "soul" were very much a part of the original thread, so you are talking nonsense.

 

Quote

Respondents do not get to redefine terms given by a thread starter, in order to advance their own agenda. They need to start a new thread of their own. Since he did not, it was done for him.

You are the one who was defining, or redefining terms, as you interpreted "evolution" to be biological evolution. Isn't that your agenda? John was talking about metaphysical evolution -- evolution of the mind. Why would he do that? How about because mind, soul, consciousness, and "God", whatever you want to call them, are all metaphysical subjects. Hence my comment that no one knew what John was talking about.

 

Quote

And that doesn't matter because it was posted in a thread where evolution had been introduced. Vexen started the thread, meaning they got to define its scope. Nobody responding gets to take the thread over and redefine that based on their own views.

So you are saying that if someone came into the Physics forum and stated that General Relativity was nonsense and Einstein was wrong, you would be OK with that? You would not take over the thread, or throw that member out of the forum? Pull the other one Swanson.

 

Quote

The responses have to be interpreted in the context of having been posted in the original thread, and evolution was very much a part of that discussion.

So you are saying that since he was talking about the metaphysical (on-topic in this forum), his posts were split, but still retained your interpretation of evolution. I think your bias is showing.

Since we have already established that you do not study consciousness and often do not even recognize it, I don't see your point.

 

Quote

The context given in the OP rules these out, but you admit to not having read it. So this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Number 4) is very much within the context of both threads.

4) Philosophy and Psychology study the evolution of consciousness and mind.  

Also consider that I remember your response in a thread I started in the Philosophy section where I referenced Biblical text. You called it, I believe the word was, an "abomination". So your bias in this matter is well established and this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

Quote

As for the rest, this isn't a negotiation. Stick to the topic of this thread, and stop trying to litigate matters.

Are you aware that the word litigate is synonymous with the word debate? What are you saying? That I should agree with you or just shut up?

Gee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Gees said:

Are you aware that the word litigate is synonymous with the word debate? What are you saying? That I should agree with you or just shut up?

!

Moderator Note

Shut up, yes, at least in this thread. This is all off-topic, and you were told to stop.

 

The topic of this thread is the nature of the soul. (Not moderation decisions, not the original discussion regarding evolution and when the soul appeared, and not any other tangential topic about religion.)