Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

I think I prefer to think of our individual human "spirit". That's not spirit in any religious sense. This might also be a workaround for the atheists amongst us.

Yes most atheists excuse themselves with "I am not religious, but I am spiritual!" ....

In which case substitute spirit for soul in the OP and give us your views ...

But I think a soul or essence of anima ... is independent of creators.

[The Grim Reaper]

I see the plonkers are discussing souls ha...huh...ha... Souls are my speciality...ha..huh..ha... Who do we have here with their "clever" posts.

Ah, we have tessintrnc from the Emerald Isle ( and from Kirne ). Let's see what advise the THE BOOK OF THE DEAD can offer. tessintrnc - beware of invitations to step dancing from Rauf Denktash ...ha...huh...ha ...ha ...huh

Who else is here? Ah I see bill cobbett in the shadows. Let's see what THE BOOK OF THE DEAD says for this plonker. bill cobbett - be wary of joining the Forum's low-lives in the gutter. ha...huh...ha ...huh....

[bill cobbett]

I see the plonkers are discussing souls ha...huh...ha... Souls are my speciality...ha..huh..ha... Who do we have here with their "clever" posts.

Ah, we have tessintrnc from the Emerald Isle ( and from Kirne ). Let's see what advise the THE BOOK OF THE DEAD can offer. tessintrnc - beware of invitations to step dancing from Rauf Denktash ...ha...huh...ha ...ha ...huh

Who else is here? Ah I see bill cobbett in the shadows. Let's see what THE BOOK OF THE DEAD says for this plonker. bill cobbett - be wary of joining the Forum's low-lives in the gutter. ha...huh...ha ...huh....

May I assure my fellow forumers that I do not fear Death and would be happy to join any of you in the gutter, on the pavements, on the streets, in the pub, etc. etc

Puss off Death. Oh. and bring back that other GR

[purdey]

Is Northern soul different from Southern soul ?

[roseandchan]

in england yes.

[Magnus]

I can see you do a fair deal of soul-searching ...

You mention "vitamin church" ... is that because a soul is only part and parcel of religion?

No, I don't think it is. I see it as something that all living things have regardless of whether they are religious. The thing is, having something and not using or nurturing it seems a bit of a waste. A bit like having yourself a nice shiny new car but keeping it on the driveway.

There are lots of things that make people 'feel better' or at peace, religious services just happen to be something that lots of people take comfort in.

What about us atheists .... do we not have a soul?

I'll just give the same answer as before: the soul is the essence of life and is therefore in all living things. If you're alive, you've got one

Fantastic topic by the way, I'm sure the ancient Greeks would be very proud of us sitting around discussing philosophy

[Oracle]

I see it as something that all living things have regardless of whether they are religious.

Let's get some idea of limits if there be any.

I guess you would happily go down through all the Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, maybe Fish?

Are you still happy assigning a soul to a fish?

Then let us carry on ...

A Sponge? ... Yeast, Hydra, Amoebae maybe? Still happy with a unicellular organism having a soul?

How about we transcend into the Kingdom of the Prokaryotes ... the everlasting, eternal Bacteria ... Yum!

Magnus does Vibrio cholera have a soul?

It is living "breathing" (certainly respiring!). It has been around (or its close relatives at least) for millions of years longer than us! It should have certainly evolved a soul by now if a soul was essential to survival.

Can one survive without a soul?

Let us push further "down" to Viruses. So highly-evolved, such perfect replicators, they have done away with everything except their nucleic acids and some protein.

So does the humble Chicken Pox virus have room for a soul if it can be synthesised virtually from scratch in a lab?

Persisting in our quest to get to the very foundations of the emergence of a soul ... we meet the perfect Prion!

Yes Mad Cow disease (or even vCJD) ... so highly evolved it sabotages the replicators of other cells to make more copies of itself.

Just protein now dear Magnus. But able to "reproduce" hence living still, perhaps? Agreed?

Where would it house a soul when it is pure protein ? .... and only One at that.

Shall we jump to the Plant Kingdom? ... I know from my own research they have many similarities, even to us ... they even possess stomata and love sugar Why should they be deprived of a soul if they were freely available to other Earthling life forms?

And what of those poor creatures we currently clone? Do they share a soul with their clone?

Have I reduced this to absurdium .....

I believe you can handle it Magnus.

[tessintrnc]

I see the plonkers are discussing souls ha...huh...ha... Souls are my speciality...ha..huh..ha... Who do we have here with their "clever" posts.

Ah, we have [b]tessintrnc from the Emerald Isle ( and from Kirne ). Let's see what advise the THE BOOK OF THE DEAD can offer. tessintrnc - beware of invitations to step dancing from Rauf Denktash ...ha...huh...ha ...ha ...huh[/b]
Who else is here? Ah I see bill cobbett in the shadows. Let's see what THE BOOK OF THE DEAD says for this plonker. bill cobbett - be wary of joining the Forum's low-lives in the gutter. ha...huh...ha ...huh....

Thanks for the advice Reaper, however am not, and never have been a great fan of Mr D. So would graciously decline an offer for a dance. But again, thanks for the warning..............

[Magnus]

I see it as something that all living things have regardless of whether they are religious.

Let's get some idea of limits if there be any.

I guess you would happily go down through all the Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, maybe Fish?

Are you still happy assigning a soul to a fish?

Then let us carry on ...

A Sponge? ... Yeast, Hydra, Amoebae maybe? Still happy with a unicellular organism having a soul?

How about we transcend into the Kingdom of the Prokaryotes ... the everlasting, eternal Bacteria ... Yum!

Magnus does Vibrio cholera have a soul?

It is living "breathing" (certainly respiring!). It has been around (or its close relatives at least) for millions of years longer than us! It should have certainly evolved a soul by now if a soul was essential to survival.

Can one survive without a soul?

Let us push further "down" to Viruses. So highly-evolved, such perfect replicators, they have done away with everything except their nucleic acids and some protein.

So does the humble Chicken Pox virus have room for a soul if it can be synthesised virtually from scratch in a lab?

Persisting in our quest to get to the very foundations of the emergence of a soul ... we meet the perfect Prion!

Yes Mad Cow disease (or even vCJD) ... so highly evolved it sabotages the replicators of other cells to make more copies of itself.

Just protein now dear Magnus. But able to "reproduce" hence living still, perhaps? Agreed?

Where would it house a soul when it is pure protein ? .... and only One at that.

Shall we jump to the Plant Kingdom? ... I know from my own research they have many similarities, even to us ... they even possess stomata and love sugar Why should they be deprived of a soul if they were freely available to other Earthling life forms?

And what of those poor creatures we currently clone? Do they share a soul with their clone?

Have I reduced this to absurdium .....

I believe you can handle it Magnus.

Oh what fun! I love this topic

I have to admit I've never sat and pondered whether amoebae have souls. While I'm not the fountain of all knowledge on this subject, I reckon I can have a go at an explaination.

People, animals and fish certainly have souls as they are clearly alive. Those are the easy ones.

Amoebae and viruses etc, I'm not so sure. We can define them as being alive in the same way we consider trees and plants to be alive, but maybe all these things are a different kind of 'alive'. In my little mind it makes more sense that these things all form a part of 'nature' and are therefore 'alive' in the sense that nature is alive in whole but not individually. So maybe an amoeba doesn't have its own soul but shares in the greater soul of nature.

Obviously, humans and animals also form a part of nature, so a part of our souls are connected to nature too and we should take joy in the knowledge that we are all connected to all things, thought perhaps less joy in the knowledge that we are also connected to certain undesirable individuals

Maybe the difference is that people (and animals to some degree) have souls that are mostly independent of nature in order to allow us more free will. It certainly works the other way if we consider that the greater the degree of free will we have, the more independent of nature (and/or God) we are. Viruses etc can only do what they are 'programmed to do'. Chicken Pox doesn't really choose who it infects ('I quite like Gary so I'll leave him alone but I hate Phil so he can have the pox'). So viruses and proteins etc can only form part of nature and can be part of it's soul because they aren't capable of doing anything else, while human beings are largely independent so we have our own.

Clones are a very tricky one but in my opinion they have no souls as they are not part of nature or humanity. However they may be created, the fact remains that they are artificial. Besides, there are far easier ways of creating more animals (or people) if we need them

Now I know my answer may not be entirely satisfactory to people who need evidence in order to believe in anything, and that's fair enough. It just comes down to what you want to be. You can be just a part of the natural chain, be born, grow, procreate, die etc. Or you can be part of something far greater. The beauty of free will is you get to choose.

Apart from that, I can offer one more answer which solves the question in a few words: if you want to know if you have a soul, ask yourself. If you don't know, ask God. If you don't believe in God, then you don't need to worry about whether you have a soul or not because you're just part of the chain.

[Oracle]

Amoebae and viruses etc, I'm not so sure. We can define them as being alive in the same way we consider trees and plants to be alive, but maybe all these things are a different kind of 'alive'. In my little mind it makes more sense that these things all form a part of 'nature' and are therefore 'alive' in the sense that nature is alive in whole but not individually. So maybe an amoeba doesn't have its own soul but shares in the greater soul of nature.

I think you are prejudiced against the humble amoeba because you cannot see it readily. But it has every one of the requirements of being alive.

It respires, it grows, it digests food, it reproduces etc. It is alive .... you just need a microscope to see it. That is our limitation not that of the protozoan.

But you are happy to assign existence to God or a soul without being able to see them. So why not Amoeba ... when you can see it at least with a microscope

Obviously, humans and animals also form a part of nature, so a part of our souls are connected to nature too and we should take joy in the knowledge that we are all connected to all things, thought perhaps less joy in the knowledge that we are also connected to certain undesirable individuals

I agree we are all connected ... but only as diffusing chemicals that we exchange as we live grow and die.

Maybe the difference is that people (and animals to some degree) have souls that are mostly independent of nature in order to allow us more free will. It certainly works the other way if we consider that the greater the degree of free will we have, the more independent of nature (and/or God) we are.

So if man developed free will to some unfathomable degree he will inevitably detach from God completely?

Viruses etc can only do what they are 'programmed to do'. Chicken Pox doesn't really choose who it infects ('I quite like Gary so I'll leave him alone but I hate Phil so he can have the pox'). So viruses and proteins etc can only form part of nature and can be part of it's soul because they aren't capable of doing anything else, while human beings are largely independent so we have our own.

But the Virus does show preference, it will infect a cow and not a chicken or Tom and not Harry. What's more it can choose to lay dormant (like Herpes) then become virulent and break out (cold sore).

Clones are a very tricky one but in my opinion they have no souls as they are not part of nature or humanity. However they may be created, the fact remains that they are artificial. Besides, there are far easier ways of creating more animals (or people) if we need them

Clones are virtually no different to identical twins....

Which on of the twins gets the soul Magnus?

Now I know my answer may not be entirely satisfactory to people who need evidence in order to believe in anything, and that's fair enough. It just comes down to what you want to be. You can be just a part of the natural chain, be born, grow, procreate, die etc. Or you can be part of something far greater. The beauty of free will is you get to choose.

You can only choose if you could perceive what is on offer. How do you perceive what is offered to be able to choose and exercise your free will?

... have a soul or not because you're just part of the chain.

Chains have links. Where in the chain are we?