.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for clarifying what you consider constitutes a soul :

« it is SOMEONE rather than SOMETHING – they don’t depend on material bodies, they only use them »

I shall keep this for reference during our future discussions.

Perhaps just one further question : if a soul is someone, does that someone also have a soul who is someone and does that someone also have a … and so on ?
.

I note that you remarked, in passing :

« The OED definition of soul is... Sloppy »

« Ouch! We are not human beings »

If I have understood you correctly, Yuyutsu, I presume you mean that we are all souls and that we “use” the material bodies of human beings. Is that correct ?

If that’s so, I have remarked that mine is getting a bit old and … “used”. Perhaps there are a few young human bodies vacant somewhere I could “use”. If I adopt your theory instead of that sloppy old definition of the OED, please advise how it works. Do I have to purchase, if so how much does it cost ? Or, perhaps I could lease, rent or borrow for a few years if it’s too expensive. I’m not that rich. A short-term lease would be fine, or maybe an Airbnb – that would be great if it’s possible.

But, then, how would my wife recognize me ?

Boy, your system sounds more complicated than I imagined. Maybe I’ll just stick to the sloppy old definition of the OED. I’m not sure I want to be a soul anyway. Sounds a bit spooky to me …

At midnight in the museum hall
The fossils gathered for a ball
There were no drums or saxophones,
But just the clatter of their bones,
A rolling, rattling, carefree circus
Of mammoth polkas and mazurkas.
Pterodactyls and brontosauruses
Sang ghostly prehistoric choruses.
Amid the mastodonic wassal
I caught the eye of one small fossil.
"Cheer up, sad world," he said, and winked—
"It's kind of fun to be extinct."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuQM8SLatK4

.

Dear NNS,

innocent or guilty does not have meaning to a fetus. I have tried to change the focus not to atheist vs. Christian but to have some consideration for the wishes and well-being of the pregnant woman. She is a living, adult, reasoning human being. The primary consideration in my opinion should be for her. Most Christians have the humanity to give consideration for her. You don't speak for Christians. You speak for your narrow, fundamentalist view of Christianity. Australian is still primarily a Christian country. Abortion is legal in many Christian countries due to the decision of Christians. You do not speak for all Christians just for the narrow, fundamentalist view of some unenlightened Christians. If only atheists were for abortion no western country or any country with an atheist minority would have legal abortion. Legal abortion is a woman's right not an ateist's right.

Dear Banjo,

«if a soul is someone, does that someone also have a soul who is someone and does that someone also have a … and so on ?»

Scripture tells of several levels/layers of souls, finite in number - Hinduism speaks of four, sometimes six (besides the physical body):

http://www.thekundaliniyoga.org/Vedanta/pancha_kosha_five_layers_of_human_existence.aspx#Soul%20atman%20wrapped%20in%20five%20layers%20Pancha%20kosha%20of%20Arishadvarga
http://fractalenlightenment.com/33744/spirituality/koshas-the-five-sheaths-that-wrap-your-soul

And Jewish Kabbalah speaks of five (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, Yechidah):

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380651/jewish/Levels-of-Soul-Consciousness.htm
http://www.safed.co.il/kabbalah-and-the-inner-spirit.html

Christianity seems to only differentiate between spirit and soul, but perhaps the Christians here may correct me:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/Doctrines/spirit_soul_body.htm

Most times we speak of "soul", we refer to the Manomaya Kosha, equivalent to the Neshamah of Judaism, because this layer normally remains and reincarnates when the physical body is gone (the Pranamaya Kosha, "Nefesh" or "Ruach" usually dissipate soon after), but depending on context one could be speaking of a different layer.

«I presume you mean that we are all souls and that we “use” the material bodies of human beings. Is that correct ?»

This is relatively more correct and less sloppy than seeing ourselves as material bodies, but even this is sloppy because ultimately what we are is God for there is nothing but God, including bodies, minds and souls. In other words, "my soul" and "your soul" seem to be different just as "my body" and "your body", but in truth they are one.

«Do I have to purchase, if so how much does it cost ?»

You get a new body to best suit the long-term course of your life: if you lead a good moral life, then you are more likely to get a comfortable body with which you can be rewarded and enjoy life; and if you lead a life of evil, then you are more likely to get a wretched body with which you can suffer for your previous actions. Nevertheless, it is best not to aspire for enjoyment, because that enjoyment will eventually expire - best is to aspire to permanently escape this cycle of birth and death altogether.

To Banjo Paterson.

Sorry for the delayed response to continue on what was said before. Thank you for waiting though.

Two other points you mentioned I want to address. One is the OED definition of human.

<A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance >

This definition of human shares the same hole in it for young babies, premature babies that are born early, and unborn babies. All of which are unable to speak yet and do not have an upright stance yet without the help of an adult to hold them up.

Second point is regarding a fetus and the time they have a consciousness. If I can ask where is the data to pinpoint consciousness to the 27th or 28th week? I don't just mean this as a counter point, but I would like to know where that point stems from. As of now the point of consciousness seems like the personhood debate and the point when the fetus has a soul debate. Both of which are argued arbitrarily because neither has a defining way to determine the soul, or characteristics of personhood that would be met by a born baby protected by the laws and morals of the culture, but not met by unborn babies.

If consciousness is of the same arguments under a new term, then I don't hold them as reliable arguments. However, I think I can counter the idea of what week consciousness is developed by noting that premature babies can be born before the 27th week. With medical assistance they can also survive to grow up too. Without a defining characteristic of consciousness, I assume that these premature babies have a consciousness. (If there is data, then there might be more to stand on then the other two arguments at the point of having a soul or aquiring personhood.

Dear NNS aka undead human,

There is no question that the woman whose body contains the fetus is an adult human being with the power of reason. However, you and other men who will never be pregnant feel entitled to say whether or not she should have an abortion. You have dismissed her with your remark that she should kept her pants on. As far as I can remember, on this thread I am the only one on either side of the question who has shown any concern for the pregnant woman and her needs and desires. You use the nonsense locution, unborn baby. The expression remains nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it. I really am disappointed that no one else, pro or con abortion, has expressed any concern for the woman. Does anyone else have any concern for her? Am I amid monsters?

To Yuyutsu.

As a Christian I can tell you that there are a few competing theories and theologies relating to the soul and the spirit. Some say the soul and the spirit are the same thing. Some say having a soul is something given to us after we're saved, and that is our eternal self. Some differentiate the soul to be the person, and the spirit to be outside influences, like having the Holy Spirit in them, or having an evil spirit plague them. (Both instances seem to portray a condition that is not the normal condition people are in but are an outside force that either leads them or drives them mad).

I can't say based on any reliable standard of what the difference between the spirit and the soul is, but it is my general attitude that our soul is our essence. Much like the way you've described a soul to be a who instead of a what. If I'm wrong though, it's the kind of thing that I don't think will make a difference in life or a difference in our destination after this life.