What do you believe?

The soul may occupy the body as early as six months before birth, or as late as a month after birth, though in the latter case it has been hovering over the body since birth, deciding whether or not to occupy it. Once the decision is made and the occupation completed, the veil drops between the new personality and the soul, and the earthly record of the child begins. (The fact that a baby is sometmes born dead does not mean that it was refused as a vehicle for a soul. Just the opposite is true: the channel is withdrawn from the soul; no occupation is possible.)

The body is formed in the womb according to the pattern made by the mingling of the life forces of the parents, each with its respective pattern. This is the metaphysical symbolism of the 47th problem of Euclid, the Pythagorean theorem: the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. As soon as occupation by a soul takes place, the pattern of the soul begins to work its way through the body, and the child's personality begins.

The personality is a high-lighted portion of the individuality, experiencing three-dimensional consciousness. The rest of the individuality remains in shadow, giving tone to the personality; urges, appreciation, tastes, avocations, and what is loosely termed 'charm' - the background to which intuition responds.

The personality is shaped by three or four incarnations, the portions of the earthly experiences on which the individuality wants to work. The emotions and talents of the person reflect these incarnations. The dreams, visions, meditations - the deep, closely guarded self-consciousness of the personality is the pattern of experience among the other states of consciousness of the solar system. The intellect is, roughly speaking, from the stars: it is the mind force of the soul, conditioned by its previous experience in creation outside the solar system, and dimmed or brightened by its recent experiences within the solar system.

 

Thus s personality is only an aspect of an individuality. A soul, deciding to experience earth again, might assume any of several personalities, each of which would express a portion of itself. As a soul approaches completion of the solar cycle the personality becomes more many-sided, expressing greater portions of the individuality. This is because each incarnation has less adverse karma, requiring less attention. Finally the personality is a complete expression of the individuality, and the cycle is completed.

(As an individuality succumbs to earthiness, abandoning intellect for emotion and emotion for sensuality, it becomes more and more one-sided.)

The incarnations which influence the personality reflect their patterns in the person's life. Sometimes they intermingle: a child's parents may re-create the environment of one experience, while his playmates will re-create the environment of another. Sometimes the influences work in periods: home and childhood may re-create the conditions of one incarnation, school and college those of another, marriage those of a third, and a career those of a fourth. Usually the people and the problems of the incarnations have interlocking relationships, so that the pattern of the personality's experience is a rational development, and the problems are presented to him as he is prepared to meet them. Because the incarnations only reflect their problems (their blessings as well as their handicaps), usually the karma of more than one can be undertaken in a single life; if the life is successful, considerable progress is made toward freedom from flesh.

When a life is finished the personality vanishes. Its pattern is absorbed into the individuality. Its record is retained, but it becomes a part of the individuality, which at all times is the sum total of what it has been: all it has thought, all it has experienced; all it has eaten, drunk, and felt through the ages.

(Here is an example of how extremes may meet. Both the atheist and the Christian seem to be right. The atheist says the personality does not survive after death; The Christian says the soul is judged after death and returns to its Creator. Substituting personality for soul, both are expressing a truth. The personality is judged, returns to its creator - the individuality - and is absorbed, giving up its own independent existence.)

The general plan for perfecting the individuality in its experience of the solar system then proceeds. Another state of consciousness is assumed, as a trial or as a means of reinforcing the character of a future personality.

 

i'm an atheist who believes the soul survives after death

i just think it has nothing to do with a god or gods

 

Sounds like Buddhism

 

That's interesting. I'm a Christian who believes the soul probably doesn't survive the body after death.

 

I am a christian who finds the peace of god beyond all symbols.

 

I had to think about why I liked the atheist + afterlife idea more than yours and I think its because the word "Christian" just insinuates so much.

An equal amount can be said about the belief in an afterlife and a belief in god, but we both know Christianity is more than that.

That being said, I am possibly at fault for respecting Buddhism as much as I do, as I have nothing but experiences with Buddhists supporting my decision. Actually, I know I am at fault, because I categorically refuse to consider why.

 

What's a soul?

 

What's a soul?

 

A type of fish.

 

How is it you can believe in a soul without believing in god? The soul only comes from the description that god created it.

 

soul = sole?

 

A basic definition of the soul in scientific terms would be something along the lines of 'Interacting neurons which, in conjunction with sensory organs, produce a subjective quality from stimuli.'

spirit, mind, self. There are tons of definitions that usually mean the same thing.

 

Soul + science = humourous


A soul (if it exists) could be our tether to the metaphysical.

 

You don't understand how they are using the word.

also i edited the post a little late, please re-read.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

It's my undertsanding that the word was first used in the book of Genesis.

"The Modern English soul derived from Old English sáwol, sáwel (first attested to in the 8th century poem Beowulf v. 2820"

"The epic of Beowulf, the most precious relic of Old English, and, indeed, of all early Germanic literature, has come down to us in a single MS., written about A.D. 1000,"

I think the book of Genesis was the first place the idea of the soul was used.

 

Yes, but the word represents an idea that predates both Beowulf and the book of Genesis. What they call the idea is irrelevant.

also, in an earlier post i said "definition" where i should have said "word". oops.

False. Egyptians predate the Jews, The Mesopotamians predate the Egyptians. The Chinese predate the Mesopotamians and so on...

 

Yes, I suppose so

 

Maybe he's been reading my posts in this thread.

Or maybe he just knows. The subconscious mind forgets nothing.

 

I don't mean to offend, but your posts give me a headache.

I don't deny that they hold relevant knowledge because i only read a few sentences of a select few posters posts before i decide not to read the rest. (Famewalk and yourself)

Things like the use of unconventional terms, detailed explanations of otherwise summarized events, unsupported assertions and indecipherable semantics make it either impossible to respond, or signify an arrogance that is beyond my patience.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not going to pretend like i know that your posts aren't making any sense because they might mean something to someone. I just cant understand a lot of them, so i cannot comment.

I'm glad you can accept knowledge. how rare that is is actually saddening.