Questions about the Soul

William,

I agree with the idea of group souls for animals — it is a fundamental part of my belief system. But it makes more sense to me that group souls are smaller than saying every fish in the world belongs to one huge group soul. To me, it looks like every fish in one school of fish constitute one group soul. Take a look at this picture.


Google Image Result for http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/wallpaper/img/2009/10/oct09wallpaper-7_1600.jpg

Here we see one school of fish that is acting as if it was one entity. I think it is, one group-soul. When a diver tries to divide the school with his arm, the school divides to avoid his arm, but them ‘clumps’ right back together into its ‘group soul.’

I also believe that, as we look at progressively more evolved types of animals, the group souls have fewer members. When I look at a litter of newly-born kittens, it makes sense to me that all of the kittens in the same litter belong to a single group-soul.

Of course, the day comes when highly evolved animals like dogs, cats, horses, elephants, etc., become so highly evolved that they no longer need to be born into a group soul, and are ready to ‘break out on their own’ — be born into their own individual soul — a human being.

~~~

I agree that the soul creates the personality and the personality incarnates. It makes sense to me that when a person dies the personality returns to the soul and it's energy and experiences are assimilated back into it. But I wouldn't say the person no longer exists, I would say the personality no longer exists, and that, as you are saying, a person's true nature is at a level of consciousness far higher than a person's personality.
 
The soul is your existence in God, it is not separate but it doesn't know it. This is the whole existence, the journey of the soul back to the Source. It isn't really a journey, but it wouldn't be very interesting if there was no contrast.

It is like a movie, except God is the actors, the scenery, the writer, the director, everything. If this was not the case, how would God be omniscient, omnipotent, omniomni. If there exists a situation where God is not, you deny his totality. Does any faith teach to limit God? Surely we can agree that everything every scripture has said must be in part correct since it too has come from God, but it is all part of his play. When we disagree based on beliefs we are defining God, saying it is not possible He is what another believes him to be. Why isn't it possible? Do you have solid proof, or are you blindly attaching to the scripture you have come to know best?

You don't need saving, you are not in danger because you never left Source. You are only to discover the truth of it all, the awesomeness and divine reward.
 
I see a lot of statements in this thread about rejecting certain events in history, do you not find it interesting to study these things though? If it wasn't greatly interesting it would not even be worth remembering or looking into, but still it is all due to the divine will. It cannot be otherwise, else we accept that something is more powerful than God, your bias is founded in ego, the illusion generator.

You must begin to conceive of it all as a movie, look at the types of movies we are creating and then see how it correlates to all of existence. What types of movies are most interesting? Yet, in that situation, we know it to not be true, but still they can induce emotion - what is the difference? Television is one of the activities humans do most, there is also the internet, where we can discover activities elsewhere and further entertain ourselves. What if existence is merely the divine entertainment? What are the ramifications?

Do the actors enjoy their roles in movies and the like? Do the directors and actors watch the finished result despite being a part of it, despite knowing what happens? This is our true condition though, we are actors that have gotten entirely too into the role. We have forgotten this is all scripted, we have forgotten that all this contrast has a purpose. We have become too serious in our roles because we have completely identified with it.
 
But it makes more sense to me that group souls are smaller than saying every fish in the world belongs to one huge group soul.
Click to expand...
But I wouldn't say the person no longer exists, I would say the personality no longer exists
Click to expand...
I find these ideas to be fairly agreeable with my own beliefs. It's not something I know from experience (other than my own intuition and feelings), but the existence of souls, the differences between people and animals, and so on...it's a teaching that makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top