What is the soul?

[KomradRed]

As the title says, what exactly is the soul, as far as we are able to understand it? For years I believed the soul was the the personality and memories of a human being, but if so then lets say a person suffers an accident that relieves them of their memories and personality, like a stereotypical strike on the head, and the person, from that point onwards, begins to develop a new personality independent of the old one. Does this mean that the previous personality had its own soul while the a new soul was brought into being by the new personality? Another hypothetical situation, lets say someone is cloned similarly to the way Jango Fett was cloned in Star Wars, with millions of cloned Jangos wandering around. When I was in Catholic school I was taught that everyone is born with a soul, but what if someone is cloned? Is a soul generated when each clone is given life, or is a soul only tied to the original person?

[mitchellmckain]

For the spiritual aspect of our being that represents both our eternal nature and true self I use the term "spirit", and rather than being something we start with, I see it as something that is a product of our choices. Furthermore, I believe that such a spirit is something that every living thing has and not just human beings.

What then shall I do with the word "soul"? I believe that both the body and mind of a human being are living organisms and thus both of these has a spirit. In other words we have both a spiritual body and a spiritual mind. Since it is human beings alone which have a mind of any significance it is only human being which have a spritual mind, so perhaps this is what the "soul" could refer to?

Part of the difficulty it that the term "soul" sometimes seems to refer to life and sometimes to our individual uniqueness. Perhaps the former is connected with the idea of God breathing life into bodies of clay according to the story in Genesis and this has given rise to magical elements in different stories where life is a substance that can be given or taken away. Since I do not think this is consistent with what science has discovered, and that life is a process rather than a substance, this aspect to the meaning of the term is rendered somewhat meaningless to me.

I reject this idea of God as an ancient necromancer using magic to animate golems of clay and flesh, and instead see the story as symbolically representing something quite different where God's breath (from which the word "inspiration" is derived) represents God's communication to Adam and Eve, consisting of ideas which gave birth to the human mind as a living organism. But this is an inheritance of information which God has given to all of us collectively and not something given to each of us individually, and the term "soul" is not typically used in that way.

I do see our individuality and uniqueness as gift and creation of God but not by some kind of magical ingredient, but by the unique circumstances of our lives and I see God's role not as some kind of designer or artist as if we were inanimate objects, but more as a shepherd and teacher seeking to stimulate us. In the end it is our own responses to the circumstances in which we find ourselves in, which makes us what we are. The theist generally sees this whole process as part of a developing relationship with God.

Part of the unique circumstances we must respond to is found in our biological uniqueness and DNA. But I do not think that is who we really are. Our true self is not found in our unique circumstances but in the choices we make in response to them. It is not like the circumstances and the choices are completely separate and distinct -- they cannot exist without each other and so are inseperable, but it is only by the role they play in our choices that our unique circumstances really become a part of us.

[JustJim]

Matthew 22:37 - Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

Study note: A quotation from Deut 6:5. The threefold reference to different parts of the person says, in effect, that one should love God with all one’s being.

Deuteronomy 6:5 - You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being, and all your strength.

Translator note: Heb “soul”; “being.” Contrary to Hellenistic ideas of a soul that is discrete and separate from the body and spirit, OT anthropology equated the “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh) with the person himself. It is therefore best in most cases to translate נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) as “being” or the like. See H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 10-25; D. Fredericks, NIDOTTE 3:133-34.

I wonder if we can surmise from these quotes and notes what Jesus' meaning might have been when he used the term "soul" in this "first of the greatest commandments" (as something clearly different from, if not separate from, "heart" and "mind").

Jim

[spongebob]

Mitch, I have to say that I'm enjoying reading your musings on soul, spirit and spirituality of late, on this and other threads. I wouldn't say that I totally accept or agree with all of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fascinating idea. It seems that on rare occasions I encounter this approach, and this is where I find comfort and enlightenment. So, please accept my praise on this matter. I may inject a dissenting view here or there, but it doesn't mean I'm not appreciating what you have to say. Further, if this were the face of modern religion, I'd have a difficult time objecting. And who knows, perhaps someday it will be.

[Daystar]

The soul, according to ancient Babylonian teachings, was immortal. An invisible part of the person that lived on after the death of that person. These Babylonian teachings influenced the Egyptians, the Persians, and the Greeks. Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato, then, in turn, influenced Jewish religious beliefs beginning at about the time of Alexander the great. Plato, quoting Socrates, wrote “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.” - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

There is probably some confusion about what the soul is because of the difficulty of translating the Hebrew and Greek words with the closest thing we are familiar with, which is the word soul itself which comes from Greek philosophy. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [Hebrew ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).” - 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Bible teaches that the soul is mortal. It dies. (Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible says that the soul of any living creature is, in a very basic sense, the life giving blood of that creature. Animal or human. In a broader sense though, it is the life of the person or animal. It is interesting that you brought up the memories in context with the soul, because part of the soul or life in the broader sense is the person's experiences. If, however, due to some sort of tragedy or trauma, that would be a continueing part of that person's experience - their life.

[mitchellmckain]

The Bible teaches that the soul is mortal. It dies. (Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible says that the soul of any living creature is, in a very basic sense, the life giving blood of that creature. Animal or human. In a broader sense though, it is the life of the person or animal. It is interesting that you brought up the memories in context with the soul, because part of the soul or life in the broader sense is the person's experiences. If, however, due to some sort of tragedy or trauma, that would be a continueing part of that person's experience - their life.

Whereas the Bible teaches that the spirit is imperishable and immortal (1Cor 15). Confusion arises because it also teaches that the spirit can die, but the death of the spirit is not an end to its existence but an eternal torment (Luke 9:60, Luke 16:19-31, Matt 13:50, Matt 25:46). The eternal life that Jesus speaks of is much more than a mere continuation of existence. Eternal existence is something which we have already and cannot escape. The difference is having that which make an eternal existence worthwhile.

No, hell is not a torture chamber in which God punishes people for daring to doubt the Bible or the idiocies of some legalistic christian ideology, hell is simply the continued existence of people who have spurned the things which have everlasting value. The latter is not a code for the former. That which has everlasting value is something which we all must seek for ourselves. I believe that it can only be found in the the creator of the universe, inventor and source of life, who values love above all other things and who I see most clearly in Jesus.

For I believe that Jesus is God become a man who laid down His life for all of us and rose again to show us that spirit (and the God who is spirit) is real. But the word "God" and the practices of religion have historically been twisted into many life-denying things, for man seems to have a genius for turning everying he touches to an evil purpose. And thus we must all find our way through this world of confusion as best we can, and I certainly do not believe that the answer is found in parroting dogmas or surrendering your mind to ideologies. I believe that those who seek sincerely will find what they need to find in their own language.

[Daystar]

Whereas the Bible teaches that the spirit is imperishable and immortal (1Cor 15). Confusion arises because it also teaches that the spirit can die, but the death of the spirit is not an end to its existence but an eternal torment (Luke 9:60, Luke 16:19-31, Matt 13:50, Matt 25:46). The eternal life that Jesus speaks of is much more than a mere continuation of existence. Eternal existence is something which we have already and cannot escape. The difference is having that which make an eternal existence worthwhile.

I don't think that the Bible teaches that the spirit is immortal because it doesn’t teach that it is alive. In a basic sense the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma (from which comes the English pneumatic and pneumonia) means simply “breath.” They can also be translated as wind. Spirit means an invisible active force. It could be wind, breath, mental inclination. Anything that is unseen but that produces results. Luke 9:60 is making a reference to the spiritually dead. Let the (spiritually) dead bury the (literally) dead and so those alive in spirit follow Christ. If a person can be spiritually dead then the spirit can’t be immortal in the sense of living on in immortality after death. Matthew 13:50 and Luke 16:19-31 are examples of Jesus using illustration in teaching the destruction of the wicked. (Ezekiel 22:18-22) Fire being symbolic for destruction.

No, hell is not a torture chamber in which God punishes people for daring to doubt the Bible or the idiocies of some legalistic christian ideology, hell is simply the continued existence of people who have spurned the things which have everlasting value. The latter is not a code for the former. That which has everlasting value is something which we all must seek for ourselves. I believe that it can only be found in the the creator of the universe, inventor and source of life, who values love above all other things and who I see most clearly in Jesus.

The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of hell. Here is a link to an article on hell I wrote if you are interested.

For I believe that Jesus is God become a man who laid down His life for all of us and rose again to show us that spirit (and the God who is spirit) is real. But the word "God" and the practices of religion have historically been twisted into many life-denying things, for man seems to have a genius for turning everying he touches to an evil purpose. And thus we must all find our way through this world of confusion as best we can, and I certainly do not believe that the answer is found in parroting dogmas or surrendering your mind to ideologies. I believe that those who seek sincerely will find what they need to find in their own language.

I disagree with your conclusions though not all of what you say. Is Jesus God? Jesus was a god, like Moses was a god and the judges of Israel were gods. The word god simply means anything or anyone which is viewed as mighty or is venerated.

[mitchellmckain]

Whereas the Bible teaches that the spirit is imperishable and immortal (1Cor 15). Confusion arises because it also teaches that the spirit can die, but the death of the spirit is not an end to its existence but an eternal torment (Luke 9:60, Luke 16:19-31, Matt 13:50, Matt 25:46). The eternal life that Jesus speaks of is much more than a mere continuation of existence. Eternal existence is something which we have already and cannot escape. The difference is having that which make an eternal existence worthwhile.

I don't think that the Bible teaches that the spirit is immortal because it doesn’t teach that it is alive. In a basic sense the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma (from which comes the English pneumatic and pneumonia) means simply “breath.” They can also be translated as wind. Spirit means an invisible active force. It could be wind, breath, mental inclination. Anything that is unseen but that produces results.

I don't think so. Just because spirit is an invisible active force or even the only invisible active force which people knew does not mean that this was its definition. You cannot convince me that taking someone from the first century and and teaching them about the force of gravity that they would then say that gravity is a spirit. There was no such definition. There was no such theology or philosohpy that all invisible forces were spirits. This claim of yours is your invention.

Furthermore, I repudiate a hermeneutics which forces all reality to be confined within the understanding of the writers of the Bible, as if the Bible must be treated as the source of all truth. Therefore, when we discover new distinctions such as invisible forces like gravity, it is absurd to force them to fit within Biblical terminology. It sound to me like this is an effort of yours to trivialize and make ridiculous the Bible which is comparable to those who treat the first chapters of Genesis as if it were some kind of science textbook or "Creation for Dummies" book. It is abundantly clear to me that the Bible has no more intention of explaining all the invisible forces in the world, than it has the intention of explaining how God created the world and everything in it.

Luke 9:60 is making a reference to the spiritually dead. Let the (spiritually) dead bury the (literally) dead and so those alive in spirit follow Christ. If a person can be spiritually dead then the spirit can’t be immortal in the sense of living on in immortality after death.

Yes the spirit obviously is not immortal in the sense of being incapable of death. In fact, all that 1 Cor 15 explains is only that the resurrection must be spiritual because the physical is by nature perishable and only the spiritual is capable of being imperishable and attaining eternal life (immortality). But what is clear in Luke 9:60 is that to be spiritually dead does not mean nonexistent. Put this with the declaration in 1 Cor, "If there is a physical body then there is a spiritual body", then the only possible conclusion is that in the spiritually dead, the spirit is not nonexistent. Therefore the death of the spirit does not mean that the spirit does not exist. In fact, since the spirit can be resurrected, then it is also clear that the death of the spirit is not even an irreversible condition.

Matthew 13:50 and Luke 16:19-31 are examples of Jesus using illustration in teaching the destruction of the wicked. (Ezekiel 22:18-22) Fire being symbolic for destruction.

Fire is a symbol for many things. There is a baptism by fire and that hardly means destruction. There are the burning coals in Proverbs 25:22 and in Rom 12:20 that certainly do not mean destruction. As in James 3:6, fire can represent the capacity that fire has of spreading and it is in this sense that Jesus uses it in Luke 12:49, where as elsewhere in the Bible the word "fire" is use to symbolize truth. So it is to the passage we must look to understand what the reference to fire means in that particular case and in Matt 13:50 and Luke 16:19-31 , the meaning of fire is made quite clear: just as in Proverbs 25:22 and Rom 12:20, it refers to torment. In Matt 13:50 they are thrown into a furnace of fire and what do they do? They weep and gnash their teeth. In Luke 16:19-31 the rich man goes to "Hades, being in torment" where he is "in anguish in this flame" and he asks to be able to warn his brothers, "lest they also come into this place of torment".

Look clearly you do not want to understand these passages according to the plain meaning here and I can understand why. The idea of hell as a means by which God tortures people just does not seem compatable with a God of love, right? But look at the world! Is there no pain and suffering in the world? If the mere existence of pain and suffering is incompatable with a God of love then you already have a problem before you go anywhere near the Bible. Therefore is not the consistent and logical approach to first ask yourself why the pain and suffering in the world is compatable with a God of love and then conclude that the same explanation applies in this case as well? First of all some pain serves a purpose because it warns us and it teaches us, but the torment spoken of in these above passages does not seem to be of this sort and thus we should liken it instead to the instances of pain and suffering which are completely senseless and un-neccessary. Much of this is a consequence of a truth that life can only exist in a world of rules or natural law. In other cases, it is because the pain and suffering is inflicted by people on themselves. Thus I conclude that if the torment refered to in the above passage are likewise self-inflicted or a matter of logical or natural consequence then just like the un-neccessary pain suffering in this world, the torment described in the words of Jesus is also compatable with a God of love.

No, hell is not a torture chamber in which God punishes people for daring to doubt the Bible or the idiocies of some legalistic christian ideology, hell is simply the continued existence of people who have spurned the things which have everlasting value. The latter is not a code for the former. That which has everlasting value is something which we all must seek for ourselves. I believe that it can only be found in the the creator of the universe, inventor and source of life, who values love above all other things and who I see most clearly in Jesus.

The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of hell. Here is a link to an article on hell I wrote if you are interested.

I am sorry but I think that the above passages make it quite clear that this just isn't true. It is true that the concept of hell is not one that is clearly expressed everywhere in the Bible. But the one place where it is abundantly clear is in the words of Jesus Himself. So, shall we understand the words of Jesus using the tanakh (OT) as our lens or shall we understand the tanakh using the words of Jesus as our lens? We certainly have many choices of hermeneutical principles when we read the Bible. The Jehova Witnesses certainly find ample means in the OT to interpret the New Testament the way that they do, but I cannot say that this is fruitful one for me. I have far more difficulty with the OT than the NT and if I did not have the words of Jesus as a lens through which to understand it, then I would not be inclined to have anything but contempt for it because of the actions and character which it attributes to God.

For I believe that Jesus is God become a man who laid down His life for all of us and rose again to show us that spirit (and the God who is spirit) is real. But the word "God" and the practices of religion have historically been twisted into many life-denying things, for man seems to have a genius for turning everying he touches to an evil purpose. And thus we must all find our way through this world of confusion as best we can, and I certainly do not believe that the answer is found in parroting dogmas or surrendering your mind to ideologies. I believe that those who seek sincerely will find what they need to find in their own language.

I disagree with your conclusions though not all of what you say. Is Jesus God? Jesus was a god, like Moses was a god and the judges of Israel were gods. The word god simply means anything or anyone which is viewed as mighty or is venerated.

Yes I am a Trinitarian Christian upholding the definition of Christianity and the Biblical canon by the first eccumenical councils at the end of fourth century. Clearly this is not true in your case.

The word god simply means anything or anyone which is viewed as mighty or is venerated.

No, it does not. It certainly did not mean any such thing to the Israelites. I don't even think it mean't any such thing in ANY culture on the planet. In asian and North American religion it was the case that the only word they had was for both god and spirit and thus these certainly were synonomous in those cultures, but your claim does not follow. Then there was a tendency in polytheistic cultures like the Roman Empire for the ruler with absolute power to declare himself to be a god, but even then your definition does NOT apply. It was very clear in such societies that claiming to be a god meant far more than merely being mighty or venerated.

[mitchellmckain]

For years I believed the soul was the the personality and memories of a human being, but if so then lets say a person suffers an accident that relieves them of their memories and personality, like a stereotypical strike on the head, and the person, from that point onwards, begins to develop a new personality independent of the old one. Does this mean that the previous personality had its own soul while the a new soul was brought into being by the new personality?

I have never heard of a case where a loss of memory was so complete that the person is reduced to the mental equivalent of a new born infant and only in that case do I think it is possible that a completely new mind is born. So I would judge that the alterations you are talking about is not so different from circumstantial changes. Not only do people change from day to day and if you take a person out of their environment and put them in a completely different one then the resulting changes in their personality can be profound. In this case what has changed is there internal environment, but regardless their choices both past and present are still a part of who they are.

Another hypothetical situation, lets say someone is cloned similarly to the way Jango Fett was cloned in Star Wars, with millions of cloned Jangos wandering around. When I was in Catholic school I was taught that everyone is born with a soul, but what if someone is cloned? Is a soul generated when each clone is given life, or is a soul only tied to the original person?

Well there needs to be some separation here between the science fiction fantasy and the reality of cloning. Clones are NOT carbon copies of a full grown person - that is just material for an entertaining story or film. The REALITY is that, at most, cloning is ONLY a way of producing infants with the same genetic code, and is already represented in nature by identical twins. There is therefore absolutely no need to think this represents any greater challenge to the idea of a "soul" than does identical twins, and thus it should be clear that yes each has their own "soul" or spirit.

In MY understanding the spirit is created by the choices that a living thing makes in its life, and thus in the non-deterministic universe in which we live that means that the spirit/soul of each clone/twin is going to be completely individual and unique.