For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?

Originally posted by HEROI I did not say that babies have no brain or learning ability.What i meant was self-cousiousness which they certanly dont have when they are born and they continue developing it while growing up and become aware of themselves.

How can one learn to do something without bieng aware of your environment and your existence in it as a seperate entity? One cannot learn to crawl to mummy without first bieng aware that there is a seperate entity, you want to get to the seperate entity and you can do this by pushing limbs over which your mind has control against the floor. Please note the first post mentioned consciusness not self consciusness anyway. please if you can provide evidence or reasoning for your assertion that babies can not be self-conscious.

Originally posted by HEROI I dont expect others to agree with me on that,cause we might end up in a very deep philosophical debate.And we certanly would not agree then,since being an atheist,ones mind is open to all posibilities,and we have to agree that when it comes to beliving in god,one as a human being dont really have to bother making some kind of decisions,they are made for one,one only have to jump at their defence,in a different kind of reasoning then that of an atheist.

"being an atheist,ones mind is open to all posibilities," by definition that can not be the case an Athiest by his/she/eunuch's very nature can not be open to the possibility of a god or for that matter many gods.

Originally posted by Zagros   Should I demand proof?

As far as I am aware there is no evidence for the existence of heaven so for the purpose of this thread I was under the impression that its existence was assumed. No proof can be provided merely the views of varius "holy" books etc.

Originally posted by Zagros   You're completely misconstruing what I said - I stated that a baby does not have a consciousness beyond that of crying, eating and pooing and judging by Seko's posty it appears that i am 100% spot on. The point is, that if a baby dies within the first year, its soul will be of no more significance than that of a new born kitten.

Crying, eating and sleeping are some of the only things a newborn child is physically able to do. Furtheremore How do you know that (don't say you observed it, you haven't) babies do not have a consciusness beyond that, consiusness is not determined by knowledge or moter skills anyway. Besides which the Human brain is not comparable with the brains of a Kitten at any point.

Have you read those translations Seko? and if so, would you provide an instance where they'd have a significantly different translation of a text compared to another version.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) Have you read those translations Seko? and if so, would you provide an instance where they'd have a significantly different translation of a text compared to another version. Thank you.

Is the soul of a baby different from the soul of an adult?

Huh? Accuracy in favor of political correctness? I must have missed that admission. Would you share that with us? Omar, these are interpretatioins and a few tafsirs. It's in English for God's sake. Do you think the old english style of Ali is more pleasant to your ears? Not miine. And lastly Ali and Pickthall were not free of bias.  What gave you that impression?

No they are not free from their own biases. But they didn't set out to do a "Reformist Translation", they set out to do an accurate one, and are thus not worried about things such as "a non-sexist understanding".
You'd actually be hard pushed to show much sexism in Ali's work anyway.

As for the underlined section, any reasonable translation will use the logic of the Quran as the ultimate authority, although there really isn't anything wrong with using our ancient patriarchal scholars opinions as an aid. They are just as good as the next mans.

Do you think the old english style of Ali is more pleasant to your ears?

Actually yes, I do like that to be honest. But I can see that type of King James English being a tad difficult to understand for most people.

Originally posted by Zagros So, we are traditionally led to believe that when we die we either go to heaven or hell or some such place... though in what state? As a consciousness?  Well, most cultists would contend that we would either descend or ascend in that state.  So what about babies?  They have no consciousness beyond that encompassing feeding, pooing, sleeping, feeding, pooing and sleeping.  Are they doomed to spend eternity in such a state? Without knowing wtf is going on... ever?

I'm not going to really address this from a religious point of view because I'm not religious, but why would a baby be doomed? If it's living in an innocent state what is it seeking which would change that state of innocence? If the baby knows no other way would it even feel doomed? 

Why 33,please explain?

How old was the Prophet when he die?

For us maybe,but ancient writers used it very well!Post me link of Arabic with Latin letters and good phonetics!Our,Hebrew and Your language have to have same roots&Close!Ancient Egyptian.

They use the toilet CV,long time ago!Ecology comes from animals,they alarm us.