l AM GOD
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
My viewpoint on the soul, quite simple really.
Genesis 2:7
Soul is a classification of when the body is given life. It has no external conscience, and it is not immortal. It does not go to heaven or hell when we die, for when we die, the body-spirit link is broken and it does not exist. That is all. Therefore I found this entire argument of whether the soul would be digitized to be absolutely nonsensical.
Genesis 2:7
Soul is a classification of when the body is given life. It has no external conscience, and it is not immortal. It does not go to heaven or hell when we die, for when we die, the body-spirit link is broken and it does not exist. That is all. Therefore I found this entire argument of whether the soul would be digitized to be absolutely nonsensical.
Further in the text it's said that the soul, the spirit of god is eternal. It may not contain a consciousness, but it's certainly refered to as the immortal soul. A highly esteemed commentator on Genesis, Chizaki (or something like that), notes that the "soul" is part of god, and is therefore, as god himself, immortal and eternal.
I'm not sure what I seem to be arguing now. I'm just saying the soul very much exists in the Jewish faith and that it is indeed eternal.
It was apparently Chizkuni. And unless you have a torah commentator book (barely anyone has) it's a bit difficult to cite. However I think this should cover a little of it:
http://mydvar.com/tag/chizkuni/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewish-afterlife-beliefs/
(some rabbi)
It was apparently Chizkuni. And unless you have a torah commentator book (barely anyone has) it's a bit difficult to cite. However I think this should cover a little of it:
http://mydvar.com/tag/chizkuni/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewish-afterlife-beliefs/
(some rabbi)
[MENTION=164]noex1337[/MENTION]
Soul in the modern sense of "eternal and pertain to after life" does not exist originally in Judaism. The text refer to "living soul" i.e. pertain to the living world and not the underworld.
7 Then 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.
Source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
No, he wasn't the one who wrote that.
The original writer is unknown.
7 And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.
Source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3112.htm
There's no mention of continuous existence of soul here.
Definition of "soul" differ from book to book.
Soul in the modern sense of "eternal and pertain to after life" does not exist originally in Judaism. The text refer to "living soul" i.e. pertain to the living world and not the underworld.
7 Then 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.
Source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
No, he wasn't the one who wrote that.
The original writer is unknown.
7 And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.
Source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3112.htm
There's no mention of continuous existence of soul here.
Definition of "soul" differ from book to book.
I see. Thanks, i'll get back to you on that (as it's a bit lengthy).
[MENTION=170]Zero Phoenix[/MENTION]: I refuse to read all that buy I've taken the liberty of extracting all the bible texts. Have you read all of this?
Now make your point. And do not confuse references to the resurrection and eternal life in heaven with your proposition of the immortal soul.
[MENTION=170]Zero Phoenix[/MENTION]: I refuse to read all that buy I've taken the liberty of extracting all the bible texts. Have you read all of this?
(1 John 5:16, 17)
(2 Cor. 7:10)
(Eph. 5:14)
(Matt. 8 : 22)
(cf. Gen. 2:17)
(cf. Gen. 5:5)
(Gen. 3:17-19)
(cf. Mark 9:44)
(cf. Matt. 8:12)
(cf. Matt. 5:22)
(Isa. 1:31)
(cf. Rev. 20:14)
(Rom. 8:13)
(John 6:63)
(John 6:68)
(cf. Rom. 7:10)
(cf. 2 Cor. 2:16)
(2 Cor. 7:10)
(Eph. 5:14)
(Matt. 8 : 22)
(cf. Gen. 2:17)
(cf. Gen. 5:5)
(Gen. 3:17-19)
(cf. Mark 9:44)
(cf. Matt. 8:12)
(cf. Matt. 5:22)
(Isa. 1:31)
(cf. Rev. 20:14)
(Rom. 8:13)
(John 6:63)
(John 6:68)
(cf. Rom. 7:10)
(cf. 2 Cor. 2:16)
Although it is not expressed as being eternal, it does express it to be "of God". Taking into account that god is eternal, it stands to reason, and has been argued by commentators, that the soul would also be eternal. Although you are right, the "modern" concept of the soul does not exist. The hebrew word used in this passage can also mean spirit, soul and essence. As for the underworld? Did I say that?
I think you missunderstand my claim. I said that soul is very much real in early judaism, it is the reason for living, the spirit of life, part of god. However I've also said that the soul that lives on after death was introduced at the same time as the messonic prophecies and was in fact inspired by persian beliefes of rebirth.
The tricky thing about hebrew is that one word doesn't just mean one thing. While it may be used as "soul" in one instance, it can easily mean essence, spirit, breath or other things in another. The definition of soul differs, that is true, but there remains one constant and that is the soul is of god.
I think you missunderstand my claim. I said that soul is very much real in early judaism, it is the reason for living, the spirit of life, part of god. However I've also said that the soul that lives on after death was introduced at the same time as the messonic prophecies and was in fact inspired by persian beliefes of rebirth.
The tricky thing about hebrew is that one word doesn't just mean one thing. While it may be used as "soul" in one instance, it can easily mean essence, spirit, breath or other things in another. The definition of soul differs, that is true, but there remains one constant and that is the soul is of god.
Although I respect that I would also like to point out that these commentators have dedicated their life to understand the texts, and as we seem to base the arguements on the texts it's only natural to use the religious exegeses. In Judaism the rabbi is equally much an historian as he is a man of god. As you well know the jewish faith considers study of the torah and its teachings highly important, and they are therefore quite well suited to "explain" the texts, especially when the translations can be difficult.
Ah I see, I appologize. It looked like you were arguing that Judaism didn't have a concept of soul in the earlier writings.
Ah I see, I appologize. It looked like you were arguing that Judaism didn't have a concept of soul in the earlier writings.
True that.
Alright. So Let's assume theoretically that a full body translpant, as so incredibly dubiously presented in the video, does indeed transfer all that makes us human to this new "body" of ours, including the soul. Let's just assume that we can basically transfer everything that we are into a new body. Basically that we can, just for arguements sake, become immortal by transfering our concsiousness into that of a brain dead person. Looking aside from all the massive technical difficulties that is bound to be present.
My questions would then be.
1. How morally right is it to extend human life like this?
2. How do you ensure that no one abuses this by using fully sentient and alive humans to extend their lives?
3. It's a fairly well known phenomena in science that in order for progress to be achieved new ideas will have to be introduced. Most "brilliant" ideas are in fact from people who think "outside the box". In a scenario like this the old guard could keep going for centuries, maintaining the status quo, would this halt or increase human scientific development?
4. At what point would you say "enough is enough, you have to die"? Nothing can live forever after all.
Alright. So Let's assume theoretically that a full body translpant, as so incredibly dubiously presented in the video, does indeed transfer all that makes us human to this new "body" of ours, including the soul. Let's just assume that we can basically transfer everything that we are into a new body. Basically that we can, just for arguements sake, become immortal by transfering our concsiousness into that of a brain dead person. Looking aside from all the massive technical difficulties that is bound to be present.
My questions would then be.
1. How morally right is it to extend human life like this?
2. How do you ensure that no one abuses this by using fully sentient and alive humans to extend their lives?
3. It's a fairly well known phenomena in science that in order for progress to be achieved new ideas will have to be introduced. Most "brilliant" ideas are in fact from people who think "outside the box". In a scenario like this the old guard could keep going for centuries, maintaining the status quo, would this halt or increase human scientific development?
4. At what point would you say "enough is enough, you have to die"? Nothing can live forever after all.
My first question would be, "Can I even answer your questions in the hypothetical without certain unbelievers blowing the matter entirely out of context?" I do not think it possible but I will try.
1) Well we do organ transplants all the time yes? Brains, hearts, livers, kidneys, you name it. Of course reanimating the dead and taking over their bodies would be well, impractical. If we have the technology to transfer our mind into another body, would it not be more practical to utilize technology to engineer our bodies so that we don't die? Not only that but how dead is the body in question? Has it been kept on ice? What caused the person to die? I know you wish us to ignore the massive amount of technical difficulties but if I am to take this discussion seriously [and I honestly don't because really, is this not a play for a real world Deadman Wonderland meets Ghost in the Shell] I must remain quite technical and anal in that regard.
2) It's impossible so let's not even bother with the question. Like all medical technology and technology in general, this power will be abused at some point.
3) Science will always progress at the cost of our morality.
4) Never. It is in human nature as a result of original sin to abuse all the power that God gave us. Humans have shunned God in favor of science yet they still need to believe in God so that they can cling to their hope of becoming God.
1) Well we do organ transplants all the time yes? Brains, hearts, livers, kidneys, you name it. Of course reanimating the dead and taking over their bodies would be well, impractical. If we have the technology to transfer our mind into another body, would it not be more practical to utilize technology to engineer our bodies so that we don't die? Not only that but how dead is the body in question? Has it been kept on ice? What caused the person to die? I know you wish us to ignore the massive amount of technical difficulties but if I am to take this discussion seriously [and I honestly don't because really, is this not a play for a real world Deadman Wonderland meets Ghost in the Shell] I must remain quite technical and anal in that regard.
2) It's impossible so let's not even bother with the question. Like all medical technology and technology in general, this power will be abused at some point.
3) Science will always progress at the cost of our morality.
4) Never. It is in human nature as a result of original sin to abuse all the power that God gave us. Humans have shunned God in favor of science yet they still need to believe in God so that they can cling to their hope of becoming God.
It is actually the most logical country TO do it.. their major influence is not a monotheistic religion.
Some of you are saying that the body is not simply a machine to HOUSE the brain. Everything including alot of peoples definition of the soul... are all part of the brain and always have been.This should not give any change to religion only those that made wrong interpretations.
There are more then a few complications with this research though... and I dont mean on Ethical grounds.
That is relative to the story... But this topic became very...God conscious.. uhm...
At what point do we start calling ourselves gods? never? because monotheistic religions define god as an omniscient,omnipresent entity that created all that we know... there are things that humans have created in which we could be viewed as such..
God shaped the land!... so can we... God made laws!.. so did we.. GOD CREATED HUMANS!... technically wrong if there are religious evolutionists here. but for the sake argument... so can we.
There are very few things that seperate humanity from the definiton of a monotheistic god.. these days.. 2000 years ago.. TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY!.. but now.. not so much.
And Zero Phoenix:
1 I think you mean conscious.. not mind
And it is possible to map the neural pathways therefore a "mind transfer"(Transfer of the human consciousness) is not that implausible.. but like the theory behind teleportation... it would simply mean death of one container(you) and the creation of a new(clone) It is the same paradox's that come up with things like Time-travel and Teleportation. Who can be sure that the container that lives is truly you and not just a carbon copy. In regards to teleportation.. and a parallel you in regards to time-travel
2 Not wrong here.. but you are over-categorizing.. It is in human nature to enrich thyself... the methods used can be explained as.. exploits.. but only some exploits are abuse.. and some are use... society dictates the delineates between those(because its a variable
).3 Whose morality? Not mine.Theres a problem with people giving titles of brilliance to those that seem to think outside of the box.Only those that can see the full picture know what actually constitutes as OUT OF THE BOX thinking. Because Out of the box thinking really is almost impossible because it defies the laws physics... most people however are stunted by their own inner-perception that they create their own box and thus stop looking at the real box.
I am a firm believer that "The box" is this entire reality and the laws of physics that bind it. Most however create their own perception of "The box" and anyone who thinks beyond their reasoning(Box) is a genius or a complete retard.
4 I already covered