West and Donnie,

"Harm in the name of Jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned"

The Jesus Cults of the first century were household affairs. There were stories and levels of (Jewish) exclusivity. There was Christian civil disobedience [not willing to pray for the safety of the Emperor], loutish [before baptism behaviour and reinactment of cannabalism, placed them at odds with the Pagans [The word Pagan is related to our notion of civil).

These early believers were somewhat on the back foot socially. Anti-social athiests to the rational Roman. No wonder these people were scapegoat of first choice for Nero.

The "harm" [to others] bit comes, I suggest, after Cult(s)tranmutes to become a Denomination, under the latter Emperors. The cults faded into history, and, politics and the established Church, then gave us the horrors of Christianity, and, the millions upon millions of deaths wrought in the name of some itinerant holy man. The [real] Man fell from the stage, and, the substitionary spin has been well spun,to become the Western and Orthodox Christian churches.

In sum, Jesus is only the skeleton, around which, others have built the Christian denominations. The Christians were in the first instance seen as antisocial, readily making them a easy target for the superstitious Romans, when Nero et al., needed to deflect civil anger. The instutionalised Christian church(es)is what became harmful, but, it was a different entity to the original cults.

Philo,

Do high social mammals have souls, in your view? Whales, chimps and dogs are sentient, social, have a sense of self and recognise and others. If high mammals do have souls, why does god punish them, via nature? If not, why must we? Why can't West be correct in alluding to we being an electro-chemical cocktail, to which, I would add, being constantly modified by culture, within ecology. [We are, because we are, Philo.]

What about ameoba? Does a soul need an intelligent host? Why? Why not?

In the interim, I posit Soul does exist. It is form of popular music. :-

Oliver,
All thinking forms of life have a soul. They make choices that affect other living beings. Choices define the being. Intellectual choices are not merely chemical. Trees have a body of organic chemistry determined by the environment over which they have no intellectual choice. They do not posess the capacity of choice.

What remains eternal are the principles of relationship that reflect the pure character of God. All matter is constantly changing - however we express more than what is determined by the matter of our chemistry. God is eternal, and the character that reflects God in truth remain in Him. While you continue to look for physical beings in the after life there are none. God is spirit not a dimentional being. The spirit afterlife we inhabit is the nature and character of the spirit we live in now. It is a corporate character and attitude a unity, not a diversity of beings (spirit beings).

Where did you get that information from Philo?

Philo,

Soul: Is your posit, the soul is closer to the concept of psyche, rather than something ethereal? Herein, the soul would subject to conditioning, in the same way behaviour is in general?. If so, this would run against the grain of free will. Those in ecology A. will act differently to those in ecology B., having developed different capacities towards independent action (choice). Something super-added and derived from biological function and cultural engagement, such as, personality, as mentioned by West.

A neonate has little or no intellectual capacity beyond recognising sensory tableaux (Piaget). An adult chimp would be much smarter and better equipped to make choices. You have answered the question: Does a chimp have a sould [yes?]. What about the infant?

Nature: Assuming you mean "pure" in a favourable way, in reference to God, why is it, nature is so savage? Is there not some inconsistency, here?

Philo,

Re-read your post:

" The spirit afterlife we inhabit is the nature and character of the spirit we live in now."

-- Temporal and Ethereal?

" It is a corporate character and attitude a unity, not a diversity of beings (spirit beings)."

-- Please explain. A homogeneity of spirit in the after-life, in collective unity, rather than individuals? A compound not a mixture?
Is the source concept the Bible, Philosophy or Theological interpretation, other?

Philo,

You are correct to think that I don't understand what a soul is. I also don't understand crystal healing, pyramid power or why aliens haven't made themselves known to us. But that's ok, I am sure it's my own fault.
But at least we can probably agree on one thing, a foetus would not have a soul, because it is neither a thinking being nor able to exercise choice. I wish the rest of Christianity could see it too.