Print Page | Close Window

For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21099
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 11:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?
Posted By: Zagros
Subject: For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:06

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 once confounded a pair of Canadian missionaries with that question... so much so that they had to seek a higher councel from a more learned theologist. Ahan.
 
I believe Islam addresses this confoundment in the most satisfactory manner in that it simply says that the after-life is beyond our comprehension as human beings since our current mode is intended for life in this Earthly existence alone.  Clever retort or is that simply how it is?
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:34
Religions are nothing but huge masses of inconsistency.

-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:36
That's a pretty good line Feanor. I will also agree to it. When has a large group of people ever been consistant anyway?

-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:54
Yes, but let us concentrate on this one facet, that of souls and the afterlife.

-------------


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:06
Idealism deals with absolutes. I don't think religions accept the fact that the consciousness of a human being can be formed and develop over time.

-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:17
Zagros, you sure do come up with some good ones. I would think that we need a conscience in order to experience the great Consience. Maybe babies will have the ultimate in pacifiers instead. Who knows? Since I'm not sure I'll ask my postman and see what he thinks.
 
Feanor, most social programs and theories that lead them are bound by certain absolute beliefs. Even religions can allow wiggle room for private interpretation.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:29
let me know how you get on :)

-------------


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:30
Originally posted by Seko

Even religions can allow wiggle room for private interpretation.

Replace 'can' with 'have to' and we are there.



-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:40

A very good point.

I would say that all religously based organizations do have regulations that are the expected norm and those that are not. If a person falls in between they are outcast heathens. Since getting others to listen up and follow is the hard part, people just go ahead and start up there own religion. However, living a religious life based on one's idea of faith and acknowledgement to a higher power leads to more wiggle room.
 
 Sometimes we should let people decide for themselves and let the cookie crumble where it may. In fact I'm starting my own brand of religion. It's called cookie cutters annonymous.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:45

It's interesting, for I had actually given this some thought back in the day (along with many other divine inconsistencies) until a local 'wise muslim man'  told me that once we all acsended to heaven we would all be 33 years old. How god knows what a baby will be like in three decades is none of my business.



Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 21:16

“We created man from an extract of clay, then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then we made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing and blood clot), then we made the alaqah into a mudgah (chewed-like substance)...” (Quran, 23:12-14) 

In Sura 17 Allah created man from clots of blood. We could assume by the statements the human spirit enters into the body at birth into the world, but it’s not for me to say that's for the theologians.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 00:00

In Islam, children are sinless. I can't speak for the other religions.

 



-------------


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 06:28
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?


Excuse me for bieng blunt but how do you know that babies do not have a consciusness (aside from the whole eating, sleeping and pooing thing)? Furtheremore Babies learn at a MUCH faster rate then the rest of us, I doubt one could learn how to speak without a consciusness.

Regards, Praetor.



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 15:42
Because I have observed it.  Thus it is obvious, we start with minimum cognitive functions; babies' cognitive functions ARE literally non-existent except for the preprogrammed/instinctual survival functions of the mind.   Our state of cognitive consciousness is considerably greater than that of any baby or toddler because we have grown up and with that our consciousness has developed.   In addition, a human's brain is not fully developed until the late teens.
 
Babies learn at a much faster rate because they know nothing to start.  Do you expect that you can communicate with a baby in the afterlife like you would with a more developed human?


-------------


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:42
With all respect Zagros - I think you are confusing soul with intellect (cognitive consciousness), which are two very different things.
 
Our state of cognitive consciousness is considerably greater than that of any baby or toddler because we have grown up and with that our consciousness has developed.   In addition, a human's brain is not fully developed until the late teens.
 
In your opinion, how much (and in what unit) do we need to "develop" our consciousness before we qualify for having a soul?
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 19:15
Originally posted by Northman

I think you are confusing soul with intellect (cognitive consciousness), which are two very different things.

One of them being a myth, they are indeed quite different.



-------------


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 19:29
A myth to some - very real to even more - still very different to all.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 19:33
No, they are intertwined, what is a soul without a sense of what is what?  

-------------


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:10
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.
 
In the afterlife, everyone is equal - no need for an intellectual elite.
 
PS..  You didn't answer my question Zagros - how or when do we qualify for having a soul - is it age, IQ or level of education? 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:12
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".


-------------
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 22:41
Originally posted by Zagros

Because I have observed it.  Thus it is obvious, we start with minimum cognitive functions; babies' cognitive functions ARE literally non-existent except for the preprogrammed/instinctual survival functions of the mind.   Our state of cognitive consciousness is considerably greater than that of any baby or toddler because we have grown up and with that our consciousness has developed.   In addition, a human's brain is not fully developed until the late teens.
 
Babies learn at a much faster rate because they know nothing to start.  Do you expect that you can communicate with a baby in the afterlife like you would with a more developed human?


The afterlife is a completely different world Zagros you can't apply  the same rules to it.

Furtheremore I am aware that our brains  take many years to finish developing, this however does not mean we are not aware of ourselves at birth. Furtheremore how could you observe a baby not  having a consciusness? How does one learn without the ability to observe what is going on and learn from it and then aply it to ones circumstances?

Regards, Praetor.


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 00:32
When the soul enters a body is difficult to figure.
 

[32:7] He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.

[32:8] Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.

[32:9] He shaped him and blew into him from His spirit. And He gave you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brains; rarely are you thankful.

[4:1] O people, observe your Lord; the One who created you from one being (soul), and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard GOD, by whom you swear, and regard the parents. GOD is watching over you.
 
22:5. O people, if you have any doubt about resurrection, (remember that) we created you from dust, and subsequently from a tiny drop, which turns into a hanging (embryo), then it becomes a fetus that is given life or deemed lifeless. We thus clarify things for you. We settle in the wombs whatever we will for a predetermined period.* We then bring you out as infants, then you reach maturity. While some of you die young, others live to the worst age, only to find out that no more knowledge can be attained beyond a certain limit. Also, you look at a land that is dead, then as soon as we shower it with water, it vibrates with life and grows all kinds of beautiful plants
 
 
When God created Adam he told the angels to bow down before His creation:
 
Once I design him, and blow into him from My spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him.
 
 
The Soul is the real person.
 
2:286] GOD never burdens a soul beyond its means: to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits.
 
 
 
The soul is not the physical body. It came with God's spirit. However, people can wrong or do good for their own soul. The soul matures as the person experiences life. People cannot kill their soul. They can kill their body. The soul may enter a body once a fetus is formed (from 40 days to maturity 35-40 weeks). I would think that babies do have a soul.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 01:41

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.  

Animals can be high spirited in the way they move around and a joy to watch. We can describe ourselves as free spirited meaning we remain ourselves no matter what goes on around us. If a person is injured or unconscious in an accident they are said to show fighting spirit by pulling their ordeal.  Babies show spirit in seeming very alert at an early age. We could also use the words character, personality or charisma and some give the impression of having more “life” than others.

When a child is born they are released from the inner world of the mother’s womb into this world we all know and we all came the same way. Many other things happen once born and hopefully the new child has the survival instinct (or spirit) to grow and constructively learn from what goes on around them. Is there anything religious what I have said so far? 

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 01:47
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.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 03:01
Omar what I'm saying is not just language but what we can all can hear, see, feel, sense and experience. If you have ever seen one person more excited or more competitive than another then you have seen spirit or soul. When you say a baby has a soul, in the religious sense they do but in the secular sense they are alive with all their life before them. The afterlife is a different question. To many life came first, religion came after.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 03:37
Babies can not have personalities since they dont have consiousnes*,which they develop latter in life,at about 4-5 years old.Having no counsiousnes*,makes their soul invisible,but do they have a soul??????

-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 03:47
Originally posted by HEROI

Babies can not have personalities since they dont have consiousnes*,which they develop latter in life,at about 4-5 years old.Having no counsiousnes*,makes their soul invisible,but do they have a soul??????


I would kindly ask you to prove that babies and children below the age of 4 can not or do not have a consciusness.

Regards, Praetor.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 04:21
I learned to read when I was four years old and that was not considered unusual in the area I lived in. 

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 04:59
I was a picky eater from the time I was born. I refused to breath because it tasted bad.
And I clearly remember sneaking a look at a lock when mum wasn't looking when I was about 7 months old. I wanted to figure out how it worked.

Without question babies have both consciousness and personality, from before they are born.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:19
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.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:20
Originally posted by HEROI

Babies can not have personalities since they dont have consiousnes*,which they develop latter in life,at about 4-5 years old.Having no counsiousnes*,makes their soul invisible,but do they have a soul??????
There are babies that read at the age of two, hardly a thing a creature without a personality can attain.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:57
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.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.
We might continue the debate and surely will end up mentioning God ( which even the topic has an theological question) and is there were our logics will lead us to different paths.So i decide to say my opinion in this.
 
I do belive that babies,dont have self-cousiousness,therefore can not have a personality.If anyone can convince me otherwise it would have to be by an chientific,philosophical point of view,not theological.But of course i welcome an theological explanation.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:13

In order to continue with this debate I think a few definitions would be helpful in clarifying the differences between a few terms of importance. The words, conscious, self-conscious and conscience are defined.

Main Entry: 1con·scious javascript:popWin%28/cgi-bin/audio.pl?consci05.wav=conscious%29">
Pronunciation: 'kän(t)-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin conscius, from com- + scire to know
1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation <conscious of having succeeded> <was conscious that someone was watching>
2 archaic : sharing another's knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact
3 : personally felt <conscious guilt>
4 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception
 
 
Main Entry: self-con·scious javascript:popWin%28/cgi-bin/audio.pl?selfco23.wav=self-conscious%29">
Pronunciation: -'kän(t)-sh&s
Function: adjective
1 a : conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging to or originating in oneself : aware of oneself as an individual b : intensely aware of oneself : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conscious - CONSCIOUS <a rising and self-conscious social class>; also : produced or done with such awareness
 
 
Main Entry: con·science javascript:popWin%28/cgi-bin/audio.pl?consci01.wav=conscience%29">
Pronunciation: 'kän(t)-sh&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt, from com- + scire to know -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science - SCIENCE
1 a : the sense or http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consciousness - consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego
2 archaic : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consciousness - CONSCIOUSNESS
3 : conformity to the dictates of conscience : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conscientiousness - CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : sensitive regard for fairness or justice
 
 
The following is a medical identification of babies' state of consciousness.
 
javascript:void%28null%29">
Baby's First Month: States of Consciousness

http://www.medem.com/medlb/ecomm_buffer.cfm?url=http://www.aap.org/bookstore&type=1">CARING%20FOR%20YOUR%20BABY%20AND%20YOUNG%20CHILD
For purchasing or reprint information, http://www.medem.com/medlb/ecomm_buffer.cfm?url=http://www.aap.org/bookstore&type=1 - click here.

As you get to know your baby, you'll soon realize that there are times when he's very alert and active, times when he's watchful but rather passive, and times when he's tired and irritable. You may even try to schedule your daily activities to capitalize on his "up" times and avoid overextending him during the "down" periods. Don't count on this schedule, however. These so-called "states of consciousness" will change dramatically in this first month.

There are actually six states of consciousness through which your baby cycles several times a day. Two are sleep states; the others are waking states.

States of Consciousness in Action

State 1 is deep sleep, when the baby lies quietly without moving and is relatively unresponsive. If you shake a rattle loudly in his ear, he may stir a little, but not much. During lighter, more active sleep (State 2), the same noise will startle him and may awaken him. During this light sleep you can see the rapid movements of his eyes beneath his closed eyelids. He will alternate between these two sleep states, cycling through both of them within a given hour. Sometimes he'll "retreat" into these sleep states when he's overstimulated, as well as when he's physically tired.

As your baby wakes up or starts to fall asleep, he'll go through State 3. His eyes will roll back under drooping eyelids and he may stretch, yawn or jerk his arms and legs. Once awake, he'll move into one of the three remaining states. He may be wide awake, happy and alert but relatively motionless (State 4). Or he may be alert, happy and very active (State 5). Or he may cry and flail himself about (State 6).

If you shake a rattle by your baby's ear when he's happy and alert (States 4 and 5), he'll probably become quiet and turn his face to look for the source of this strange sound. This is the time when he'll appear most responsive to you and the activity around him and be most attentive and involved in play.

In general, it's a mistake to expect much attention from a baby who is crying. At these times he's not receptive to new information or sensations; what he wants instead is comforting. The same rattle that enchanted him when he was happy five minutes earlier will only irritate him and make him more upset when he's crying. As he gets older, you may sometimes be able to distract him with an attractive object or sound so that he stops crying, but at this early age the best way to comfort him usually is to pick him up and hold him.

As your baby's nervous system becomes more developed, he'll begin to settle into a pattern of crying, sleeping, eating and playing that matches your own daily schedule. He may still need to eat every three to four hours, but by the end of the month, he'll be awake for longer periods during the day and be more alert and responsive at those times.

States of Consciousness

State Description What Your Baby Does
State 1 Deep sleep Lies quietly without moving
State 2 Light sleep Moves while sleeping; startles at noises
State 3 Drowsiness Eyes start to close; may doze
State 4 Quiet alert Eyes open wide, face is bright; body is quiet
State 5 Active alert Face and body move actively
State 6 Crying Cries, perhaps screams; body moves in very disorganized ways



-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:25
Originally posted by Seko

 
 
Main Entry: self-con·scious javascript:popWin%28/cgi-bin/audio.pl?selfco23.wav=self-conscious%29">
Pronunciation: -'kän(t)-sh&s
Function: adjective
1 a : conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging to or originating in oneself : aware of oneself as an individual b : intensely aware of oneself :

http://www.medem.com/medlb/ecomm_buffer.cfm?url=http://www.aap.org/bookstore&type=1">CARING%20FOR%20YOUR%20BABY%20AND%20YOUNG%20CHILD
For purchasing or reprint information, http://www.medem.com/medlb/ecomm_buffer.cfm?url=http://www.aap.org/bookstore&type=1 - click here.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
That is what babies dont have,as i have explained on my last post.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:49

For humans to have self-consciousness we would need the mechanical ability for self awareness. Maybe this blurb will shed some light.

A person's part of the cerebral cortex is known as the site of the brain that carries cognitive reason (thought). That part of the cerebrum (forebrain) is the prefrontal cortex. This area of the brain does develope with age. Self-consciousness will be affected by this developement. Other than informative descriptions we really are not saying that the prefrontal cortex is the home of the soul. That is not the connection. However, it does harbor the ability for self awareness.
 
When does the fetus's brain begin to work?

Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)

The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem, which sits above the spinal cord but below the higher, more recently-evolved cerebral cortex. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions--heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.

Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life--conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex--those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing--as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother's abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother's voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life.

http://www.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ - http://www.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:29

In Islam the process of thought is described in a few verses. I've picked some for discussion purposes. Don't want to make this debate too theological but a few references will help explain my line of reasoning in describing human cognition. It's relation to self-determination and self-awareness.

First a few verses that mention the word "thought"

 

. http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/74/18 - 74:18 He thought and he analyzed.

http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/41/22 - 41:22 And there was no way you could hide from the testimony of your own hearing, or your eyes, or your skins. In fact, you thought that God was unaware of much of what you do.

http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/20/54 - 20:54 Eat and raise your livestock, in that are signs for those of thought.


Next is a verse that locates the area of thought.

 

http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/10 - 96:10 A servant from reaching out? http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/11 - 96:11 Have you seen if he was being guided, http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/12 - 96:12 Or he ordered righteousness? http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/13 - 96:13 Have you seen if he lied and turned away? http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/14 - 96:14 Did he not know that God can see? http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/15 - 96:15 Alas, if he does not cease, We will strike the frontal lobe. http://www.allempires.com/km/PM/96/16 - 96:16 A frontal lobe which lies and errs.

or this translation:

No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)! (Quran, 96:15-16)

The area of the prefrontal cortex (part of the cerebrum) is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies or the speaking of truth.

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-d.htm



-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 14:13
Its geting theologicalSmile
 
Ok, personally i have a question that theology does not have the answer for.I am including the usual suspects here ( Christianity and Islam)
My opinion was that babies do not have Self-counsciousnes, which is suported scientificaly,as is in the post of SEKO above.( note ,have a look at the definition of the word) Therefore they dont have a personality,(my opinion on that is that what apears as personality is an reflection of the parents personality inherited by the babie,since a babie is as a matter of fact a phisical part of his parents,but lets stick to the topic) and that makes their soul invisible,but wether the soul exists????????
 
We will know when this question is answered.So here comes my question.
 
AN OLD APE HAS THE SAME SELF-COUNSCIOUSNES AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE,DOES THAT MAKE THE APE,WHO IS JUST AS SELF AWARE OF ITS EXISTANCE AS THE BABIE IS,AND RESPOSIBLE OF ITS ACTIONS JUST THE SAME AS THE BABIE,SO DOES THAT APE HAS A SOUL?
 
IF YES--------- WHY ? WHERE IS IT MENTIONED IN RELIGION,AND WHEN.
 
IF NOT ----------------WHYYYY,THE OLD APE IS PROVEN TO BE AS MUCH OF AN LIVING CREATION OF NATURE AS TO SCIENTIFICALY QUALIFY AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE.
 
I AM WAITING FOR AN ANSWER ON THIS.ALL THE BEST.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:10
Originally posted by Northman

 
PS..  You didn't answer my question Zagros - how or when do we qualify for having a soul - is it age, IQ or level of education? 
 
 
 
 
Sounds sarcastic, that's why.
 
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.
 
Well in that case the spirit has an intellect meaning that a baby spends its entire existence with the intellect of a baby.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:14
Originally posted by AyKurt

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".
 
Well, this is my point.  So what are we supposed to believe here? 
 
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...


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:23
Originally posted by Praetor

Originally posted by Zagros

Because I have observed it.  Thus it is obvious, we start with minimum cognitive functions; babies' cognitive functions ARE literally non-existent except for the preprogrammed/instinctual survival functions of the mind.   Our state of cognitive consciousness is considerably greater than that of any baby or toddler because we have grown up and with that our consciousness has developed.   In addition, a human's brain is not fully developed until the late teens.
 
Babies learn at a much faster rate because they know nothing to start.  Do you expect that you can communicate with a baby in the afterlife like you would with a more developed human?


The afterlife is a completely different world Zagros you can't apply  the same rules to it.
 
 
Should I demand proof?

Furtheremore I am aware that our brains  take many years to finish developing, this however does not mean we are not aware of ourselves at birth. Furtheremore how could you observe a baby not  having a consciusness? How does one learn without the ability to observe what is going on and learn from it and then aply it to ones circumstances?

Regards, Praetor.
 
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.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:26
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. 


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:30
Originally posted by Seko

When the soul enters a body is difficult to figure.
 

[32:7] He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.

[32:8] Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.

[32:9] He shaped him and blew into him from His spirit. And He gave you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brains; rarely are you thankful.

[4:1] O people, observe your Lord; the One who created you from one being (soul), and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard GOD, by whom you swear, and regard the parents. GOD is watching over you.
 
22:5. O people, if you have any doubt about resurrection, (remember that) we created you from dust, and subsequently from a tiny drop, which turns into a hanging (embryo), then it becomes a fetus that is given life or deemed lifeless. We thus clarify things for you. We settle in the wombs whatever we will for a predetermined period.* We then bring you out as infants, then you reach maturity. While some of you die young, others live to the worst age, only to find out that no more knowledge can be attained beyond a certain limit. Also, you look at a land that is dead, then as soon as we shower it with water, it vibrates with life and grows all kinds of beautiful plants
 
 
When God created Adam he told the angels to bow down before His creation:
 
Once I design him, and blow into him from My spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him.
 
 
The Soul is the real person.
 
2:286] GOD never burdens a soul beyond its means: to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits.
 
 
 
The soul is not the physical body. It came with God's spirit. However, people can wrong or do good for their own soul. The soul matures as the person experiences life. People cannot kill their soul. They can kill their body. The soul may enter a body once a fetus is formed (from 40 days to maturity 35-40 weeks). I would think that babies do have a soul.
 
 
 
OK, I have had a revelation. Seko you've cracked it for me.  Is this from the Qur'an?  If so, I am a Muslim.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:36
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. 
 
Observe one when you have one, and ask others who do, just by that you can see that many do. 
 
It is not expanse as ours, however it is there.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:47
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.
 
Human babies are born prematurely anyway, though it is by design.  The danger with our physiology is that if the baby develops to the correct extent in the womb then it will not fit thru the pelvic cavity.


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:50
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.Smile

-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:53
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.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 16:10
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.


-------------


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 17:06
Originally posted by Zagros

Originally posted by Northman

 
PS..  You didn't answer my question Zagros - how or when do we qualify for having a soul - is it age, IQ or level of education? 
 
 
Sounds sarcastic, that's why.
 
 
Admittedly, I sharpened the question a bit from the original one that you didn't answer - but sarcastic - no!
I frased it this way for you to realise that it couldn't be answered without creating a conflict to your previous statements.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 00:06
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.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 02:41

He became intellectually active from about 4 months on.

 
Admittedly, I sharpened the question a bit from the original one that you didn't answer - but sarcastic - no!
I frased it this way for you to realise that it couldn't be answered without creating a conflict to your previous statements.
 
Not really, since I made no definitive assertion on souls and was wondering if they wer eocnsaidered to have intellects or whetherthey wee just floating masses of cabbage like energy.
 
But I have my answer now.
 
Thanks Omar.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 03:34
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.
 
I have both of those at home aside from a Bosnian/Arabic version,  you are right they are good.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 05:35
Originally posted by HEROI

 
 
AN OLD APE HAS THE SAME SELF-COUNSCIOUSNES AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE,DOES THAT MAKE THE APE,WHO IS JUST AS SELF AWARE OF ITS EXISTANCE AS THE BABIE IS,AND RESPOSIBLE OF ITS ACTIONS JUST THE SAME AS THE BABIE,SO DOES THAT APE HAS A SOUL?
 
IF YES--------- WHY ? WHERE IS IT MENTIONED IN RELIGION,AND WHEN.
 
IF NOT ----------------WHYYYY,THE OLD APE IS PROVEN TO BE AS MUCH OF AN LIVING CREATION OF NATURE AS TO SCIENTIFICALY QUALIFY AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE.
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:18

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).


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.


Wrong on principle, who says that usefulness of souls is based on physical or mental ability. My own thoughts are that you cannot combine the three. Perhaps human souls just have a more innate "worth" than that of a kitten, even if they are braindead (cat is smarter) or enfeebled (cat is stronger).



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 10:46
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/ - http://www.brainbowpress.com/
 
The Message
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595290353/freeminds-20 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595290353/freeminds-20
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 11:15
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/ - http://www.brainbowpress.com/
 
The Message
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595290353/freeminds-20 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595290353/freeminds-20
 
 
 
I have not come across those two, thank you so much Seko. þükran arkadas.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 14:40
Originally posted by HEROI

Originally posted by HEROI

 
 
AN OLD APE HAS THE SAME SELF-COUNSCIOUSNES AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE,DOES THAT MAKE THE APE,WHO IS JUST AS SELF AWARE OF ITS EXISTANCE AS THE BABIE IS,AND RESPOSIBLE OF ITS ACTIONS JUST THE SAME AS THE BABIE,SO DOES THAT APE HAS A SOUL?
 
IF YES--------- WHY ? WHERE IS IT MENTIONED IN RELIGION,AND WHEN.
 
IF NOT ----------------WHYYYY,THE OLD APE IS PROVEN TO BE AS MUCH OF AN LIVING CREATION OF NATURE AS TO SCIENTIFICALY QUALIFY AS AN 4 YEARS OLD HUMAN BABIE.
 
 


HEROI, no need to post your question twice, i'm pretty sure they saw your question the first time around, especially with all those caps Confused.   Rest assured, if someone has an opinion/answer they will post it. 


-------------
Kilroy was here.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 16:22
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 Confused
Now would you please delete my second time post if posible,cause it was a mistake,andn do what you wish with your third time post??


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 16:33
I quoted you to be as specific as possible.

I'll leave your second post, it was an honest mistake.  Just remember not to double post in the future. 

-kilroy. 


-------------
Kilroy was here.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:06
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.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 05:11
Well bless my soul, where do we come from? For those who believe in reincarnation the spirit or point of awareness, enters the body at birth and leaves the body at death. The relationship between spirit and body is like horse and rider.  However the brain with intelligence is hardwired into the body and must be properly exercised to bring out the full potential.  

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 07:20
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.


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 09:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

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.
 
Quite the opposite. The authors are constantly involved in a forum where they field questions on a regular basis.
 
I am highly suspiscious of classical interpretations that succumb to the ethnocentricities and bias of a bygone era. 
 
The translators are in the following link. An accompanying post of the difficulty in bringing it to publication is given (the political pressure in not bringing it out is writtien in the quote at the bottom). Conservatives do not like to be challenged. That is why they do not want the 'interpretation' of the Qu'ran updated:
 
http://19.org/forum/index.php/t/6993/0/ - http://19.org/forum/index.php/t/6993/0/
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:26
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.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 05:51
I bought M.A.S> Abdel Saleem's Oxford translation , I just finished reading the introduction and am on the second Sura.
 
I really like this one because it adds context to each Sura, for example: the verse, "slay them wherever you find them" has been deliberately or blindly miscontrued by Islamophobes and munafiqun as an edict to kill non-muslims everywhere when in fact this revelation came after the persecution of the Muslims by the Meccans as a right of self defence and refers exlusively to those who would persecute and kill Muslims.  The Qur'an is expliit in stating that Muslims may only fight in self defence or when answering the cry of help of the oppressed.
 
Another aspect which this translation cleared up for me was this thing about always fearing God.  why should god be feared, I always thought?  Well in the original Arabic, apparently it does not mean fear as such - but to always be mindful of God and as such don't do anything that would be wrong by him.
 
I have to say, that it is really refreshing reading the Qur'an for the first time after all of the nonsense broadcast by Western hate propaganda on a daily basis.
 
Before I purchased this translation, I compared several and found a few of the same verses and compared them.  Another notable one was by Abdullah Yusef Ali, but Haleem's topped it by a long way.


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:47
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.
 
Yes to both.
 
The Mesaj is in Turkish though. For compaison I'll come up with examples in the near future.


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 23:20
Lost my post. So this is a summerised version.

While I am not saying that the Reformist and Progressive Translations are incorrect, I think that by their own admission they have sacrificed accuracy in favour of political correctness. Not only that, but making the English sound more pleasant to the ears they may, unwittingly, be missing the point. That was the case for one of these reformist translations I read a few surahs from.
Although no-one can translate free from their own personal bias, at least we can be sure that Ali & Pickthall are free from political bias.



-------------


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 07:12
Is the soul of a baby different from the soul of an adult?
When growing, a person's soul grows also? How?
What's the difference between the soul of a living person and the soul of a dead one?
Does my dog has a soul? I would like to meet him in the afterlife.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 08:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Lost my post. So this is a summerised version.

While I am not saying that the Reformist and Progressive Translations are incorrect, I think that by their own admission they have sacrificed accuracy in favour of political correctness. Not only that, but making the English sound more pleasant to the ears they may, unwittingly, be missing the point. That was the case for one of these reformist translations I read a few surahs from.
Although no-one can translate free from their own personal bias, at least we can be sure that Ali & Pickthall are free from political bias.

 
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?
 
  • The Reformist Translation of the Quran offers a non-sexist understanding of the divine text; it is the result of collaboration between three translators, two men and a woman.
  • It explicitly rejects the right of the clergy to determine the likely meaning of disputed passages.
  • It uses logic and the language of the Quran itself as the ultimate authority in determining likely meanings, rather than ancient scholarly interpretations rooted in patriarchal hierarchies.
  • It offers extensive cross-referencing to the Bible and provides arguments on numerous philosophical and scientific issues.
  • It is God's message for those who prefer reason over blind faith, for those who seek peace and ultimate freedom by submitting themselves to the Truth alone.
  • Sorry for the interruption. We'll get back to the topic on baby souls one of these days.



    -------------


    Posted By: Omar al Hashim
    Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:28
    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.


    -------------


    Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
    Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 00:40
    I guess this won't be settled unless we get down to some real examples and comparisons of the said texts.


    Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 11:43
    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? 



    -------------
    What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.


    Posted By: Arab
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 14:48
    In Islam, all inhabitants of heaven will be 33 years old.


    Posted By: medenaywe
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 14:57
    Why 33,please explain?


    Posted By: Arab
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 15:07
    Because it was at that age that Jesus ascended to heaven. I guess if a baby died then in heaven he would appear as he would have had he lived to age 33, but who knows.


    Posted By: medenaywe
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 15:48
    How old was the Prophet when he die?


    Posted By: Arab
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 16:06
    63...and just a fun fact, the creases on your hands form a "81" and "18" in Arabic, which when subtracted becomes 63, the age of the prophet... a coincidence in my opinion. 


    Posted By: medenaywe
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 16:21
    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.


    Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
    Date Posted: 13-Jan-2012 at 23:31
    In response to the original question....
     
    Do wild bears shit in the woods?
    If you know the answer then you have the answer to both.


    -------------
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    S. T. Friedman


    Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



    Posted By: medenaywe
    Date Posted: 14-Jan-2012 at 01:08
    They use the toilet CV,long time ago!Ecology comes from animals,they alarm us.Big smile


    Posted By: Leroy
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2012 at 15:06
    Originally posted by Zagros

    For you religious nuts: Do babies have souls?

    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?

    Catholic answer: any animated being has a soul (Latin: anima). This includes plants and animals (including humans and ... babies). This is consistent with Aristotle's definition of the soul: the first entelechy of a physical organized body potentially possessing life.

    We belief that the human intellect is incorporeal. This seems to contradict the fact that brain scans show that our mental states correspond with our neural brain patterns. However we have a dualistic view of consciousness. This means that we belief that our mental consciousness is structurally associated with states of our brain.

    A Dutch philosopher explained it with the following analogy. A quantity of water may have a specific spatial form when poured in a cup. Now let's assume that the cup is made of flexible pliable material and can therefore change shape. The water in the cup will of course also change shape. Conversely, every transformation of the water must be accompanied by a structurally similar change in shape of the cup. The shape of the water would then correspond with the shape of the cup. It does not follow however that the water and the cup are identical. It also does not follow that the water depends for its existence on the cup.

    So your question about consciousness is not really a problem for Catholic beliefs (however nutty they may be).

    By the way, contrary to popular belief, limbo is not and has never been a Catholic doctrine. The general consensus is that infants go to heaven.



    Posted By: Don Quixote
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2012 at 17:40
    I am an agnostic but I believe that babies have souls, from the moment they are conceived; from where those souls came and what happens to them after death is another question. So, it's not necessary one to be religious to think over the question of souls, nor to be a nut.

    -------------


    Posted By: Baal Melqart
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2012 at 20:15
    Originally posted by Don Quixote

    I am an agnostic but I believe that babies have souls, from the moment they are conceived; from where those souls came and what happens to them after death is another question. So, it's not necessary one to be religious to think over the question of souls, nor to be a nut.


    Well I'm sorry but how can you not believe in God but believe that each person has a soul? Isn't the core ideology in agnosticism not to believe in something unless it is proven to exist?


    -------------
    Timidi mater non flet


    Posted By: Don Quixote
    Date Posted: 01-Apr-2012 at 17:36
    No, agnosticism is connected with existence or not of divinity, souls may exist or not unconnected with any divinities. Imagine that - the Indian Brahman, a world-soul, an ocean of souls, that get born into people and after their deaths go again into that ocean - such a concept doesn't require one divinity of Christian type, or any divinity at all.
    This is one of the possible possibilities that possibly can exist. That's why I say that I believe in the existence of souls, because from I've read and experienced there is more to humans that body and mind, it seems that we come with something in this life, no matter how one is going to call it - i call it "soul".

    As for agnosticism, it's more like  waiting to see what is, instead of believing that god does or doesn't exist; it doesn't require faith in one way or the other, while both theism and atheism require faith - one that divinity exist, the other that it/they don't. So this is what I do - after trying both I settled on reading both parts and waiting to see what happens. Bit this has nothing to do with the existence of souls.

    Besides, proof is a very elusive thing - one person may see an angel and not believe it, another believes that angels exist never seeing one; the first would not accept the something even if he sees it, the second doesn't need to see anything to accept it - it depends on the way of thinking of thr particular people.


    -------------



    Print Page | Close Window

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com