Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#26102 - 06/24/09 03:11 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Armand Schmitz]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: Armand Schmitz

I submit now an ameliorated deffinition of the "immortal soul",and "immortality".

The "soul" and the "flesh" are ONE, and the same. They have always been indelibly intertwined. The soul is only a romantic expression of the creativity of man. The false religious belief in the soul has persisted for thousands of years due to this original impetus of creativity! The body and soul are merged,neither is nor, yet it is the accomplishments of the creative human forces which live on after death. The soul of man's creative endeavors here on earth can truly become immortal, though only through the will of his creative power. The sole means to live "immortally" is to create earthly immortality through creativity. The God-head is truly within us after all, we are the God-head!


In response to the OP: this is not a "deffinition", ameliorated or otherwise. It is merely an assertion - no, a collection of assertions - about some undefined yet alleged entity that the English language designates with the word "soul".

The assertion - if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing - is that "body" and "soul" are words that should be held as equivalent, or synonymous with each other. But why would I regard my body as equivalent to something that doesn't exist?

G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#26105 - 06/24/09 03:32 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: god.over.djinn]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
This sounds like a semantic issue with the word "soul".

While the original poster is trying to reclaim the word from superstitious use by re-defining it (in terms of the body), your approach is to keep the superstitious definition of it and reject the concept.

This reminds me of the difference between pantheism and Atheism. While pantheists (in the naturalistic sense) wish to reclaim the word 'god' by re-definining it as the natural universe itself (something which clearly exists, at least in some sense), atheists retain the supernaturalist definition of 'god' and in turn reject the concept.

In both cases, much the same thing overall is implied, the only difference is the semantic one as to whether a particular term should be given its commonly-defined meaning, or whether it is valid to re-define its definition.

Personally, I would avoid the use of terms like "soul" and "god" (or "Satan") when they can become confusing, such as in rigorous intellectual debate.

Such terms can still possibly be useful in other contexts as a form of poetic metaphor, however, provided they are used with a disclaimer as to their meaning in order to avoid confusion (and semantic purists may still object to such non-conventional usage of language, of course).

Top
#26362 - 06/27/09 08:39 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Meq]
Demonic Moroni Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 18
Loc: Arizona
 Originally Posted By: Meq
This sounds like a semantic issue with the word "soul".

While the original poster is trying to reclaim the word from superstitious use by re-defining it (in terms of the body), your approach is to keep the superstitious definition of it and reject the concept.

This reminds me of the difference between pantheism and Atheism. While pantheists (in the naturalistic sense) wish to reclaim the word 'god' by re-definining it as the natural universe itself (something which clearly exists, at least in some sense), atheists retain the supernaturalist definition of 'god' and in turn reject the concept.

In both cases, much the same thing overall is implied, the only difference is the semantic one as to whether a particular term should be given its commonly-defined meaning, or whether it is valid to re-define its definition.

Personally, I would avoid the use of terms like "soul" and "god" (or "Satan") when they can become confusing, such as in rigorous intellectual debate.

Such terms can still possibly be useful in other contexts as a form of poetic metaphor, however, provided they are used with a disclaimer as to their meaning in order to avoid confusion (and semantic purists may still object to such non-conventional usage of language, of course).


I heartily agree here. Although in many way metaphors such as Satan and God (in the pantheistic) sense can be useful to those using them, they have the potential to become very confusing. I have been to a few naturalistic pantheistic sites that have left me scratching my head as to what they are actually saying, because they just weren't clear enough to be understood.

As for my belief about the "soul," I tend to view it as a metaphor for consciousness. When the brain dies, the soul dies with it. This is supported by my (finite) understanding of the way the human body works. Perhaps if more evidence is brought forth, I will change my view, but that is what it is for now.
_________________________
"Here I stand; I can do no otherwise."
Shemhamforash!
Hail Satan

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.017 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 16 queries. Zlib compression disabled.