Vajradhara
One of Many
Re: 21 gr?
Namaste Personanongrata,
thank you for the post.
whilst this seems to be correct, it's actually not. there are a host of religious traditions around the world that don't have a concept of a soul, especially a permenent, unchanging soul. as i'm sure you are aware, the Buddhist tradition has no conception of a soul and yet, it's doing pretty well as far as religions go
to be frank with you, it sounds like this is your opinion conditioned by your religious belief. why would religion "re-linking" be pointless without a soul?
which early religions are these?
this would appear to be consciousness, not a soul.
i would beg to differ. this does not imply a soul in the least. this does, however, imply consciousness though we can discuss that as well.
black plague = not good
Namaste Personanongrata,
thank you for the post.
PersonaNonGrata said:The soul is a staple of virtually every known religion, and religion itself would actually be pretty pointless without it.
whilst this seems to be correct, it's actually not. there are a host of religious traditions around the world that don't have a concept of a soul, especially a permenent, unchanging soul. as i'm sure you are aware, the Buddhist tradition has no conception of a soul and yet, it's doing pretty well as far as religions go
to be frank with you, it sounds like this is your opinion conditioned by your religious belief. why would religion "re-linking" be pointless without a soul?
In early religions
which early religions are these?
, the soul was a basic and largely unstated assumption, since your body would obviously just sit around on its ass unless a soul was giving it directions.
this would appear to be consciousness, not a soul.
In fact, that was pretty much the definition of the soul -- that thing which told your body how to act. It was simple.
i would beg to differ. this does not imply a soul in the least. this does, however, imply consciousness though we can discuss that as well.
Life was good...
black plague = not good