Do you believe in zombies?

[Adrift]

Not that I knew of it when I made the post, but 37818 noted that there is a strong interconnection between blood and soul.

There are at least four OT references with contextual affinity, where soul is translated as life: Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11,14; Deut 12:23

37818 post is goofiness as far as I can tell. He's over-literalizing the passage to make it read as if the soul actually lives inside of the blood or some such nonsense, or as though the blood had some intrinsic power on it's own to hold the soul in place. The passage is simply pointing out something that ought to be obvious to anyone, especially in that culture, that if an animal or human bleeds out they die. The blood is symbolic of life, it isn't literally a life essence. He's also feeding right into skeptics hands by asserting that the resurrection body does not have blood. I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't know of any passage that makes that sort of connection with the exception of 1 Cor. 15:50. But that's, again, an over-literal reading of the phrase "flesh and blood". Paul is saying something a bit more nuanced there; As N.T. Wright puts it, "the phrase sarx kaihaima functions as a composite technical terms precisely for corruptible, mortal existence."

[JimL]

37818 post is goofiness as far as I can tell. He's over-literalizing the passage to make it read as if the soul actually lives inside of the blood or some such nonsense, or as though the blood had some intrinsic power on it's own to hold the soul in place. The passage is simply pointing out something that ought to be obvious to anyone, especially in that culture, that if an animal or human bleeds out they die. The blood is symbolic of life, it isn't literally a life essence. He's also feeding right into skeptics hands by asserting that the resurrection body does not have blood. I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't know of any passage that makes that sort of connection with the exception of 1 Cor. 15:50. But that's, again, an over-literal reading of the phrase "flesh and blood". Paul is saying something a bit more nuanced there; As N.T. Wright puts it, "the phrase sarx kaihaima functions as a composite technical terms precisely for corruptible, mortal existence."

So, Where do you say the soul/spirit lives or resides inside the body?

[rogue06]

37818 post is goofiness as far as I can tell. He's over-literalizing the passage to make it read as if the soul actually lives inside of the blood or some such nonsense, or as though the blood had some intrinsic power on it's own to hold the soul in place. The passage is simply pointing out something that ought to be obvious to anyone, especially in that culture, that if an animal or human bleeds out they die. The blood is symbolic of life, it isn't literally a life essence. He's also feeding right into skeptics hands by asserting that the resurrection body does not have blood. I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't know of any passage that makes that sort of connection with the exception of 1 Cor. 15:50. But that's, again, an over-literal reading of the phrase "flesh and blood". Paul is saying something a bit more nuanced there; As N.T. Wright puts it, "the phrase sarx kaihaima functions as a composite technical terms precisely for corruptible, mortal existence."

Just a couple weeks ago a co-worker actually forwarded that argument saying that was why he only ate kosher and cooked all meat well done





Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Smiley squirrel.gif

[One Bad Pig]

So, Where do you say the soul/spirit lives or resides inside the body?

The soul/spirit is not material, so your question doesn't make any sense. We can't say any more than that it is associated with the body somehow.

[Adrift]

Just a couple weeks ago a co-worker actually forwarded that argument saying that was why he only ate kosher and cooked all meat well done

[rogue06]

Yeah. Even worse he got a few people agreeing him and for once I was actually at a loss for words being so dumbstruck at the inanity of the statement.











Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx Smiley squirrel.gif

[tabibito]

37818 post is goofiness as far as I can tell. He's over-literalizing the passage to make it read as if the soul actually lives inside of the blood or some such nonsense, or as though the blood had some intrinsic power on it's own to hold the soul in place. The passage is simply pointing out something that ought to be obvious to anyone, especially in that culture, that if an animal or human bleeds out they die. The blood is symbolic of life, it isn't literally a life essence. He's also feeding right into skeptics hands by asserting that the resurrection body does not have blood. I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't know of any passage that makes that sort of connection with the exception of 1 Cor. 15:50. But that's, again, an over-literal reading of the phrase "flesh and blood". Paul is saying something a bit more nuanced there; As N.T. Wright puts it, "the phrase sarx kaihaima functions as a composite technical terms precisely for corruptible, mortal existence."

I did not assign credence to 37818's conclusions - it was simply a matter of trying to clarify what I meant by "permeate."

[Tassman]

The soul/spirit is not material, so your question doesn't make any sense.

Neither does the existence of an immaterial soul make any sense; there is no way for an immaterial entity to connect with the material body. There’s no nexus.

We can't say any more than that it is associated with the body somehow.

So you believe but there is no verifiable evidence that this is so. There is no good reason to think that we are any more than the behaviours and knowledge generated by our brain, one cannot be separated from that. You are no more than what the brain is doing and when the brain ceases activity so do you.

[One Bad Pig]

Neither does the existence of an immaterial soul make any sense; there is no way for an immaterial entity to connect with the material body. There’s no nexus.



So you believe but there is no verifiable evidence that this is so. There is no good reason to think that we are any more than the behaviours and knowledge generated by our brain, one cannot be separated from that. You are no more than what the brain is doing and when the brain ceases activity so do you.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Teallaura]

Your opinion is duly noted.

Why?

[One Bad Pig]

Why?

Because I said so!

[JimL]

The soul/spirit is not material, so your question doesn't make any sense. We can't say any more than that it is associated with the body somehow.

Well it's you OBP, not me, that asserts that the body is just a house of sorts for the spirit. There are really only two options, the spirit is either in the body or it operates it from without like a puppeteer. So if your belief is that the soul is in the body, then where in the body is it?

[Zymologist]

Well it's you OBP, not me, that asserts that the body is just a house of sorts for the spirit. There are really only two options, the spirit is either in the body or it operates it from without like a puppeteer. So if your belief is that the soul is in the body, then where in the body is it?

It's got to be in one of the toes, otherwise why in Heaven and on earth would stubbing your toe hurt so much? The little toe, definitely.

[Teallaura]

Well it's you OBP, not me, that asserts that the body is just a house of sorts for the spirit. There are really only two options, the spirit is either in the body or it operates it from without like a puppeteer. So if your belief is that the soul is in the body, then where in the body is it?

Where is the wind?

[JimL]

Where is the wind?

It depends which wind you're talking about, sometimes it's in your lungs.