Pathway Machine

The responders don't seem to fully understand the logic behind my sentiment. The "science" here isn't science. I know what science is. The point I was making was that ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible. To me the two are different sides of the same coin. "Science" in the context I'm using here isn't science. It is, in fact, far removed. The ideologically fixated "science" minded "skeptics" who criticize the Bible, God, religion - those people know virtually nothing about religion, God, the Bible. Damnant quod non intelligunt. Nor is it blatantly ignorant. Uh-huh. Do you have evidence for this? I've already posted it, by the way. I see this as ironic because credible comes from the Latin word credit which means "believer." Faith. Credentials, credit. Very well. Apparently I should point out I've written and posted this earlier elsewhere. The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living. When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.) The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible. Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB) Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB) Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.” The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.” New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): “Nepes [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).” The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.” New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: “There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: “The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.” The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.” New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.” Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: “The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.” The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: “The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.” Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: “Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.” Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.” Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "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." Also see Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404 It's not my place to speak on another's behalf for fear I may misspeak, but in the spirit of science (ha) why you you investigate for yourself. Agnostic? You mean ignorant. As I've said. I've already done it. Not only have I defined it for you and made the necessary distinctions, I've proved it. The Biblical soul is life. Blood. The nonsensical soul you are confusing it with comes from great thinkers like Socrates. and Plato. Ironically. Let me reiterate. Biblical soul is life. Blood. Sorry to have overstated it.

Taunt them a second time? Just curious. Do you have a scriptural reference for that?

Thank you. Sorry for taking your time. Still idiots.

This one.

Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject. I agree. How is it that if they can't observe, measure or quantify it they can determine its nonexistence? No, you only think that I want to have a pop at science (God forbid). I have nothing against science or religion but the discussion of them both, especially in this context, is more often than not ideological. It isn't science and it isn't religion.

Are you excited at the prospect of the task at hand, Studiot? C'mon, it's science and the soul . . . don't hold your breath, we have to hurry. Ideologues in the name of scientism are notoriously religious . . . I'll do it for you. The English word soul means to bind. The ancient pagans would bind the hands and feet of the dead due to superstitious fear of the undead I suppose you could say harming the living. This would eventually change to the idea that souls were bound in bodies of water. When translating the Hebrew and Greek (Nephesh and psyche; I would leave links but they've made it so I can no longer do that, speaking of superstitious fear) was problematic because the exact meaning of those words were difficult to express in English. In a literal sense the Biblical soul is the life, blood, life experiences of any breathing creature. The Hebrew word literally means "breather." So, it could be and often is translated as life but in a broader sense. The first thing, then, in determining the falsifiability of the soul is to determine what or more accurately which version of "soul" you mean.

Religion

Here's the thing. The English word God was first used by pagan worshipers and means to libate, pour. The reason for that being that is part of how they worshipped. Liquid sacrifice. Later the Christian missionaries adopted the word for obvious reasons. In the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or any other language, god means something that is attributed might and therefore venerated. A god can be anything or anyone that is mighty/venerated. God is subjective and relative; there are variations culturally. God could be Shiva or God could be Jehovah. Given our cultural considerations I assume that you are talking about Jehovah of the Bible. However, since the only requirement of a god is that it is worshipped it doesn't matter whether or not the God exists in a literal sense. A god doesn't have to. Also, if a god or God were no longer worshipped it would no longer be a god, no matter if it exists or not. Okay, so the English word cosmos comes from the Greek and means arrangement, adornment. I.e. cosmos, cosmetic, cosmology, etc.

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original. The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no? You present a veiled attempt or contempt on the subject which is obviously nothing more than ideological fixation stemming from a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society. You probably see a conflict with science and religion and want that justified without having to actually do anything. That is neither science or religion. But let's put that to the text. Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists? I know I can. But can science? I have no doubt that it can, but your typical attempt to address the issue by Googling it may not produce the results you would like. With that, though, I can help you. Let's do this, huh?

What I posted here. You can go to those other places and discuss it but I'm posting here and now. Assuming that, remarkably unlike those other places, those responses are well thought out. Yeah, that certainly seems to be controversial of late. Some people have nothing better to do. I can do it either way. Chatbots just mimic what people would say if they were a great deal better at it. So, I took some of my text I had generated and some that I had written with my own and and the Chat detector couldn't detect it. It said they were both AI generated.

As well as other places. Did you notice, during your intrepid search, that at those other places they responded with thoughts?

As far as I can tell, the concept of the rapture, by John Darby, isn't expressly taught in scripture. In fact as a Bible student of ~30 years I would say it's not scriptural. The meek inherit what? Sin equals what? Flesh and blood can not inherit what? It doesn't fit.

Religious Teachings You shouldn't trust organized religion of any kind because acceptance en masse always leads to the corruption of the original teachings. Here is how religion works. A belief, philosophy or subjective fact dependent upon faith is proposed and then propagated to the masses. If they are widely accepted, they become useful tools for social and political control. Typically, the original teachings of religion are transmogrified in the process - often for the political control itself - which, through a gradual and insidious process of cultural, social and traditional influence, becomes the paradigm. You see this in the emperor Constantine the Great's politicization of Christianity and the Nicaean creed. You see it with Emperor Wu Ti's promotion of Confucianism and interest in Taoism. Shintoism was named as such due to a need for a distinction between ancient Japanese cultural ritualistic festivals during the planting and harvesting seasons and the newly introduced Buddhism from India. It was then incorporated into the mythological instruction of Japanese youth through the legends of the Nihongi and Kojiki by the Royal family. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism and Taoism Confucianism and Taoism were two different schools of thought developed around the same time in China during the Warring States period. A time when the citizens were exhausted with the constant battles between feudal states. Both believed in a heavenly way. That nature or the universe as a heavenly way rather than deities. They had two different approaches to their teachings of the heavenly way. Taoism was passive; allow nature to take its course, to interfere causes problems. Confucianism was active; nature must be harnessed. Buddhism, also originally without deities, was an attempt to find the middle way, something in between asceticism and indulgence. Its primary doctrine was the Four Noble Truths, which is to achieve enlightenment through the acknowledgement, understanding and dissolution of suffering through letting go. Shintoism was syncretistic cultural celebrations during the planting and harvesting seasons in Japan. It existed for centuries without a name, until Buddhism migrated there creating the need for a name to distinguish it from that. Though deities were incorporated into these celebrations they weren't Gods in the traditional occidental sense, resembling more what we would liken to spirits. These spirits were dead ancestors who would inhabit various objects like mirrors, swords, trees or mountains. Anything, really. The spirits were interchangeable. The importance in the Shinto festivals was community. Coming together to help one another. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism Judaism is often thought of as Biblical and separate from Christianity. Actually though they both come from, at least in part, the Bible, Judaism as known today is the separation of Jewish tradition formed when the religious leaders of Jesus's day finally got the opportunity to exploit the sociopolitical power they had long coveted formerly possessed by the Aaronic priests. The catalyst for this was the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE and the subsequent dissolution of the Aaronic priesthood. Jewish thinking, as presented by the Bible had always been prone to pagan influence, especially after the infiltration of Greek philosophy through the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 B CE. Christianity wasn't the separation of Jewish or Biblical teachings many perceive it as today, it was actually a continuation of those teachings. After all, Jesus was the long awaited Jewish messiah. Christianity itself became corrupt in the same way with the influence of Constantine the Great in 325 CE. Islam and Mormonism were, respectively, an aberration and addition to the Biblical teachings. With Islam the sociopolitical protestation of Muhammad, and with Mormonism the, well, sort of delusional cultural appropriation of Joseph Smith.