For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Ignoring the complexities of the human language. Babies certainly have souls - and complex personalities - from before the day they are born, and exist in the afterlife in whatever form the rest of us do. Which is something no human can answer. That's very true, babies can be very witty, and have a personality beyoned the hardwired instincts of feeding, cyring for food, and diaper changes.

Originally posted by Zagros Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Ignoring the complexities of the human language. Babies certainly have souls - and complex personalities - from before the day they are born, and exist in the afterlife in whatever form the rest of us do. Which is something no human can answer. That's very true, babies can be very witty, and have a personality beyoned the hardwired instincts of feeding, cyring for food, and diaper changes.       Not in the first few months, no way.

The quotes are from the Qur'an Zagros. The small summary at the bottom are my thoughts. I hope you will have many more revelations. As I hope we all will continueously subject ourselves to critical self awareness. We submit to the will of God.

Originally posted by Zagros I'm being serious btw.   Though I am still very dubious of the five pillars.  I must get myself a copy of the Qur'an.

In the first few months? nop.  I have a baby nephew and his dad just said he was an eating and pooing machine for the first few months only after that did he start being intellectually responsive - the process of learning.

Considering babies have very little motor control in the first few months, how do you know he wasn't self-conscious?

I know I was at 7 months, because I have very vivid memories as I said before.

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Zagros I'm being serious btw.   Though I am still very dubious of the five pillars.  I must get myself a copy of the Qur'an.   Try several if it is an English translation, and in Farsi too, the translations differ greatly in some aspects.

Yusuf Ali or Muhammed (formerly Marmaduke) Pickthall are two of the best into English.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim In the first few months? nop.  I have a baby nephew and his dad just said he was an eating and pooing machine for the first few months only after that did he start being intellectually responsive - the process of learning. Considering babies have very little motor control in the first few months, how do you know he wasn't self-conscious? I know I was at 7 months, because I have very vivid memories as I said before. Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Zagros I'm being serious btw.   Though I am still very dubious of the five pillars.  I must get myself a copy of the Qur'an.   Try several if it is an English translation, and in Farsi too, the translations differ greatly in some aspects. Yusuf Ali or Muhammed (formerly Marmaduke) Pickthall are two of the best into English.

Edited by es_bih - 10-Aug-2007 at 03:34

I believe the most widely acknowledged perception or definition of "soul" is the disembodied spirit of a dead human. As follows, only the soul  gets an afterlife - the body (with its brain/intellect) remains here.

I would say most widely acknowledged Northman, but according to orthodox christian teaching, our bodies and souls are united in the afterlife.

If soul is connected to intellect doesnt that just weaken the case for a soul? I mean if a soul is made of supernatural energy, a substance that is beyond natural observation, then its development would be independant of natural influences and would only be subject to the rules set down by its supernatural origin, or its creator. By connecting a soul to intellect is nothing more than just confusing your subconscious with "soul".

Agreed in full.

Does spirit or soul mean supernatural? (Meaning beyond the natural or expected state of the world). Not always. We talk of black spiritual songs. Hey bro! you gotta have soul! Soul music is part of modern life. The music has soul, the inner feelings we get by listening. Get on down! Move to the beat brothers and sisters! Nothing supernatural takes place by hearing the music. The word is therefore to do with the release, uplifting or freeing of mood, attitude and feelings. You can feel happy at a party for the spirit of the occasion has lifted you up rather than dragged you down.

Ah, yes, but this is not the definition of the "proper" soul. By that I mean the essence that makes us unique independent of the operations of the world. It would be like me saying the Holy Spirit and the spirit of being pumped up for a football match were the same.

Well in that case the spirit has an intellect meaning that a baby spends its entire existence with the intellect of a baby.

Souls do not have an independent intelligence, since intelligence comes from our brain tissue, souls are not made of brain matter, so therefore souls are not intelligent. They operate under different rules since they exist outside of this world. Intelligence determines what actions you take, but your soul determines nothing, it's just there from the moment you are granted life.

What is a soul?  Is it just an energy force? Our body is the appliance and our soul is the electricity?  That I can accept, it makes sense, but then again this energy cannot be self aware if it has no intellect...

Your soul is not a separate force from your body. You exist as three divisions, body, mind and soul. Your body is your physical form that can manipulate the world around you. Your mind is a metaphysical form that you can use to manipulate ideas, and form thoughts. Your soul is a spiritual form, however this form we are unaware of consciously, just as we are unaware of our bodies internal processes (digestion) and our minds internal processes (dreams).

Originally posted by Seko Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Yusuf Ali or Muhammed (formerly Marmaduke) Pickthall are two of the best into English.   Not really. Outdated classical style interpretation. Since then a few revised translations from others are more consistent with modern linguistics.   Reformist Translation http://www.brainbowpress.com/   The Message http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595290353/freeminds-20

Edited by es_bih - 10-Aug-2007 at 11:16

I had already become sure of that.But since you posted it for the third time i thought that you had an opinion/answer,it seams you came in this topic to dissapoint me

Edited by HEROI - 10-Aug-2007 at 16:22

Originally posted by Seko Not really. Outdated classical style interpretation. Since then a few revised translations from others are more consistent with modern linguistics.

I am highly suspicious of anyone who calls themselves "Progressive" or "Reformist". To me it suggests that they may not be able to stand up to extensive questioning, so they have to qualify themselves. With classical styles as you put it, you know your what getting is cold hard conservatism untouched by political correctness - well, political correctness of this century at least, but it is easier to adjust for 1930s thinking in my opinion.
The one on amazon doesn't even say who the translator is.