|
Post by xna on Aug 6, 2022 9:38:54 GMT -5
If the soul is consciousness then it is less confusing to just talk about consciousness. If the soul is a living conscious person then it is easier to speak simply of a living conscious person. Or simply a living person. People will still understand what you mean. Good point @matt10 Soul used in this way does not help in the understanding of what it is to be alive. Back in the bible days they had almost no understanding of life sciences. ex) Genesis 30:39 39they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. Etymology of Soul: The Modern English noun soul is derived from Old English sāwol, sāwel.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 6, 2022 10:52:02 GMT -5
I am quite interested in this discussion of soul. I agree that it really confuses the issue. No one knows what the soul is and the definition shifts to suit the purposes. Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation. The soul concept seems to be a cause for much confusion and manipulation. Yet - I have come to be very fond of my own concept of soul. Personal mythology I guess. It is the part that is, by nature mysterious- the part that is “more than”. Sometimes it just seems that there is a knowing - there is a part of me that knows more - that is older. I don’t know what it is but I feel that it is a loss to humanity to discard it. But I am well aware that it might be wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 6, 2022 12:51:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by guest8 on Aug 6, 2022 17:02:08 GMT -5
I am quite interested in this discussion of soul. I agree that it really confuses the issue. No one knows what the soul is and the definition shifts to suit the purposes. Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation. The soul concept seems to be a cause for much confusion and manipulation. Yet - I have come to be very fond of my own concept of soul. Personal mythology I guess. It is the part that is, by nature mysterious- the part that is “more than”. Sometimes it just seems that there is a knowing - there is a part of me that knows more - that is older. I don’t know what it is but I feel that it is a loss to humanity to discard it. But I am well aware that it might be wishful thinking. Does one speaking of 'having a soul' or 'their soul' mean to them, it's because of wanting the salvation described in a bible by whoever?
|
|
help
Senior Member
Life Member "Australian Order of Old Bastards" AOOB.
Posts: 841
|
Post by help on Aug 6, 2022 17:17:54 GMT -5
A Pesbyterian Minister explained to my Wife some years ago in a simple way. Wrote a note in her Bible.
Body, the vessel the Spirit lives in.
Spirit, the power that gives life.
Soul, You, me, our individual character that makes us all a different person. My Wife likens it to our DNA which I think is a good analogy. A one of, you are unique.
|
|
|
Post by mrdobalina on Aug 6, 2022 17:34:49 GMT -5
You only really know what a soul is when you meet someone without one.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 6, 2022 18:33:16 GMT -5
I believe, and was taught from my youth (not in the 2x2s but in a Baptist sect peculiar to where I live) that the Soul is the Thinking/intellectual part of all living beings (animal and human). The spirit ( breath of life) gives Life (animates) the dust of the ground, creating a Living Soul. When the spirit (the breath of life) is withdrawn the man is a dead soul. In resurrection God will bring us back by breathing the breath of life once again. So, we die, but death is called a ‘sleep’ in scripture because death is a temporary state. I hope this make sense! I’m afraid it makes no sense whatsoever. In one place you define the soul as “the thinking part of all living beings” while in another you define it as “the combination of the physical body & the breath of life (the life force)”. I’m not sure why you need multiple definitions but based on your definitions it seems clear that you define the soul as something that is living. But yet you go on to talk of “dead souls”. You appear to be confused as to whether a soul is something that can be living or dead (like a physical body) or something that can be present or absent (like life). You also appear unclear as to whether a physical body that is alive and thinking IS a soul or HAS a soul. There are physical bodies and there is life. Those things are fairly certain as one can observe evidence of them. However your idea of the soul appears to be something of your own creation. There are two things that I have learned about religion. The first is that religious beliefs exist in a different sphere than logic and science and truth and rationality and critical thinking and detail. It therefore is foolish to discuss them in this context or to try to explain them. Religious beliefs flourish best when they are learned off by heart and then recited among fellow believers without questioning. The 2x2 church is a master of that. The second thing I have learned is that small weird Christian religious sects have nothing to contribute to the advancement of human knowledge and understanding and therefore anything that is taught from our youth in one of these sects is best set aside on reaching adulthood. Matt10 Some folks don't synchronize their platitudes all that well.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 6, 2022 19:51:03 GMT -5
I am quite interested in this discussion of soul. I agree that it really confuses the issue. No one knows what the soul is and the definition shifts to suit the purposes. Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation. The soul concept seems to be a cause for much confusion and manipulation. Yet - I have come to be very fond of my own concept of soul. Personal mythology I guess. It is the part that is, by nature mysterious- the part that is “more than”. Sometimes it just seems that there is a knowing - there is a part of me that knows more - that is older. I don’t know what it is but I feel that it is a loss to humanity to discard it. But I am well aware that it might be wishful thinking. Does one speaking of 'having a soul' or 'their soul' mean to them, it's because of wanting the salvation described in a bible by whoever? Guest8 would you please reword that? I’m not following you.
|
|
help
Senior Member
Life Member "Australian Order of Old Bastards" AOOB.
Posts: 841
|
Post by help on Aug 6, 2022 21:00:43 GMT -5
There are many ways you can have peace with your soul. There are many mediums out there, you choose the one that suits you, not the one somebody tells you have to have. You must find peace for yourself, that brings happiness. This morning as we were walking the Dogs, we stopped outside a Church where they were singing our favourite Hymn. Beautiful, we both have complete confidence when we hear it. "It Is Well With My Soul" www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHe_qmo3gX4
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 6, 2022 21:06:03 GMT -5
There are many ways you can have peace with your soul. There are many mediums out there, you choose the one that suits you, not the one somebody tells you have to have. You must find peace for yourself, that brings happiness. This morning as we were walking the Dogs, we stopped outside a Church where they were singing our favourite Hymn. Beautiful, we both have complete confidence when we hear it. "It Is Well With My Soul" www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHe_qmo3gX4 Love that hymn.
|
|
|
Post by guest8 on Aug 6, 2022 22:33:43 GMT -5
Does one speaking of 'having a soul' or 'their soul' mean to them, it's because of wanting the salvation described in a bible by whoever? Guest8 would you please reword that? I’m not following you. You wrote: “Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation” I took from that= having the concept of soul corresponds with having the need for the concept of eternal salvation. The eternal salvation that is described in the bible book written 2000 years ago by various writers. My question is: when one may speak of having a soul or reference to their soul, does that necessarily mean, it's because one is believing in or wanting the salvation as descibed by some in a book written 2,000 yrs ago? As I stand, it doesn’t for me. But I accept it can for others.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 6, 2022 22:51:42 GMT -5
Guest8 would you please reword that? I’m not following you. You wrote: “Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation” I took from that= having the concept of soul corresponds with having the need for the concept of eternal salvation. The eternal salvation that is described in the bible book written 2000 years ago by various writers. My question is: when one may speak of having a soul or reference to their soul, does that necessary mean its because one is believing in or wanting the salvation as descibed by some in a book written 2,000 yrs ago? As I stand, it doesn’t for me. But I accept it can for others. Oh ok. I agree with you. Soul does not mean that to me either. But it does in the religious sense. If our souls are not saved they are lost and this means eternal suffering. Essential part of the Christian story as most (I believe) see it. So - no soul, no need for salvation - no need for Jesus. Not my beliefs but those of many as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by guest8 on Aug 6, 2022 22:55:33 GMT -5
You wrote: “Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation” I took from that= having the concept of soul corresponds with having the need for the concept of eternal salvation. The eternal salvation that is described in the bible book written 2000 years ago by various writers. My question is: when one may speak of having a soul or reference to their soul, does that necessary mean its because one is believing in or wanting the salvation as descibed by some in a book written 2,000 yrs ago? As I stand, it doesn’t for me. But I accept it can for others. Oh ok. I agree with you. Soul does not mean that to me either. But it does in the religious sense. If our souls are not saved they are lost and this means eternal suffering. Essential part of the Christian story as most (I believe) see it. So - no soul, no need for salvation - no need for Jesus. Not my beliefs but those of many as I understand it. Hence the difference between religiosity and spirituality ( not meaning roll the glass mediums).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2022 1:10:02 GMT -5
I am quite interested in this discussion of soul. I agree that it really confuses the issue. No one knows what the soul is and the definition shifts to suit the purposes. Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation. The soul concept seems to be a cause for much confusion and manipulation. Yet - I have come to be very fond of my own concept of soul. Personal mythology I guess. It is the part that is, by nature mysterious- the part that is “more than”. Sometimes it just seems that there is a knowing - there is a part of me that knows more - that is older. I don’t know what it is but I feel that it is a loss to humanity to discard it. But I am well aware that it might be wishful thinking. I note that you differentiate between soul and THE soul (plural souls) which I think is an important distinction. I think one can eliminate THE soul as a concept without eliminating soul. I see soul as the essence of deeper appreciation of things such as art, music, literature, nature etc. It is something that is experienced as a feeling and is linked to the emotions. It is something within us that we can be in touch with but it has nothing to do with the Christian God or Christianity. A person can have soul but this has nothing to do with having (or not having) a soul in the Christian sense. Of course some people appear to lack the capacity to experience such feelings, people who we might describe as soulless. As mrdobalina says, we know them when we meet them. Equally something can be soulless, ie lacking in the capacity to invoke such feelings. There are religious services which have soul and those that haven’t with the 2x2 church being near the bottom of the soul scale I think. One might argue that modern western civilisation is on a general drift into soullessness due to its focus on consumerism, materialism and social media to the detriment of our inner self. Matt10
|
|
help
Senior Member
Life Member "Australian Order of Old Bastards" AOOB.
Posts: 841
|
Post by help on Aug 7, 2022 2:02:56 GMT -5
IMO the soul is you, me, and we are all different. I don't believe the soul needs saving, it is everlasting. We have part of our Parents soul, and some of our soul we pass on to our Children. I know that Christians believe the soul has to be saved through the blood of Christ, and they are entitled to believe that if it brings them peace. But that belief would not suit a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, etc. To some extent it does not suit me as a believer in Science, Spiritualism, Humanism, and also as an Agnostic. It is each to their own.
But even though we have different beliefs we should not be at enmity with one another. That does not bring peace to our soul. We must love all people no matter what their beliefs.
I believe it is not about yourself, it is what you share with others. The more you give, the more you will receive back, that brings peace to the soul.
Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
A big apology to Cherie, this thread was meant to be about her book. Maybe we should start another thread, to discuss soul. A very interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Aug 7, 2022 5:14:59 GMT -5
I am quite interested in this discussion of soul. I agree that it really confuses the issue. No one knows what the soul is and the definition shifts to suit the purposes. Found the point interesting that if you get rid of the concept of soul then there is no need for the concept of salvation. The soul concept seems to be a cause for much confusion and manipulation. Yet - I have come to be very fond of my own concept of soul. Personal mythology I guess. It is the part that is, by nature mysterious- the part that is “more than”. Sometimes it just seems that there is a knowing - there is a part of me that knows more - that is older. I don’t know what it is but I feel that it is a loss to humanity to discard it. But I am well aware that it might be wishful thinking. I note that you differentiate between soul and THE soul (plural souls) which I think is an important distinction. I think one can eliminate THE soul as a concept without eliminating soul. I see soul as the essence of deeper appreciation of things such as art, music, literature, nature etc. It is something that is experienced as a feeling and is linked to the emotions. It is something within us that we can be in touch with but it has nothing to do with the Christian God or Christianity. A person can have soul but this has nothing to do with having (or not having) a soul in the Christian sense. Of course some people appear to lack the capacity to experience such feelings, people who we might describe as soulless. As mrdobalina says, we know them when we meet them. Equally something can be soulless, ie lacking in the capacity to invoke such feelings. There are religious services which have soul and those that haven’t with the 2x2 church being near the bottom of the soul scale I think. One might argue that modern western civilisation is on a general drift into soullessness due to its focus on consumerism, materialism and social media to the detriment of our inner self. Matt10 For me, it's the word soul itself that is the problem. Too much emphasis on religious connotation.
|
|
help
Senior Member
Life Member "Australian Order of Old Bastards" AOOB.
Posts: 841
|
Post by help on Aug 7, 2022 6:00:06 GMT -5
I have started another thread for soul talk, so this thread gets back to the topic of the OP.
New Thread "It is well with my soul".
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 21, 2022 10:58:18 GMT -5
Cherie has kindly made several copies of her book available in the TTT library. PM me for borrowing terms.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 1, 2022 22:30:46 GMT -5
I am intrigued (the polite term) at some of the workers utterances that we now have access to through Cherie's book. In a couple of places it mentions black stockings and on page 569/570 there is mention of a letter by a worker called George Walker who after conferring with sister workers said that it was better for women to wear black stockings as black is furthermost from the flesh colour that many of us believed was unbecoming to women professing godliness. That raises a few questions. Did black American woman have to wear white stockings? Did black American men find women in black stockings attractive? Did white male workers working in a country where the skin colour is predominantly black, find black women wearing white stcokings attractive? In other countries where the predominant skin colour was black or brown or pink, what were the rules?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 2, 2022 0:08:09 GMT -5
I am intrigued (the polite term) at some of the workers utterances that we now have access to through Cherie's book. In a couple of places it mentions black stockings and on page 569/570 there is mention of a letter by a worker called George Walker who after conferring with sister workers said that it was better for women to wear black stockings as black is furthermost from the flesh colour that many of us believed was unbecoming to women professing godliness. That raises a few questions. Did black American woman have to wear white stockings? Did black American men find women in black stockings attractive? Did white male workers working in a country where the skin colour is predominantly black, find black women wearing white stcokings attractive? In other countries where the predominant skin colour was black or brown or pink, what were the rules? I learned that Nathan had one special thing in common with William Irvine. Middle of page 194.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 2, 2022 0:43:17 GMT -5
I am intrigued (the polite term) at some of the workers utterances that we now have access to through Cherie's book. In a couple of places it mentions black stockings and on page 569/570 there is mention of a letter by a worker called George Walker who after conferring with sister workers said that it was better for women to wear black stockings as black is furthermost from the flesh colour that many of us believed was unbecoming to women professing godliness. That raises a few questions. Did black American woman have to wear white stockings? Did black American men find women in black stockings attractive? Did white male workers working in a country where the skin colour is predominantly black, find black women wearing white stcokings attractive? In other countries where the predominant skin colour was black or brown or pink, what were the rules? I learned that Nathan had one special thing in common with William Irvine. Middle of page 194. Oh yes, I noticed that. There are many interesting stories in the book but there also many more interesting stories that have not been included. Other wise it would be 5000 pages long.
|
|
magpies39plus
Senior Member
WHY? Does quoting relevant scripture send the 2x2;s into sometimes a nasty response??
Posts: 576
|
Post by magpies39plus on Feb 17, 2023 4:14:22 GMT -5
NO NAME?? NO PROPERTY?? Not here .?? In 1931 when Bill Carroll registered Christian Assemblies of Australia it was for the purpose of owning the Convention grounds at Dandenong. When that property was auctioned(some went for freeway)it was sold as the property of the Christian Assemblies of Australia. SO!! we were allowed to lie and decieve others with the NON_Truth by saying we have no name or property?? Why didn't anyone let us know we were big fat liars.some by knowledge some by default. The "Truth"did not exist?? The new name was Christian Conventions of Victoria,Trustees Colin Storer,Alan Bird and Arthur Robertson. was revoked in 2017 when the Gov't announced the Redress where all victims of sexual crimes could sue the Institution that did or employed the perpetrator. Now the ministry of deceiption can say"we are not an Institution"? As an ex Worker said,"They are masters of deceipt". The "Truth"what is Truth?? It is not a LIE or Deception is it??
|
|
rudyw
Senior Member
Posts: 623
|
Post by rudyw on Feb 17, 2023 19:06:50 GMT -5
NO NAME?? NO PROPERTY?? Not here .?? In 1931 when Bill Carroll registered Christian Assemblies of Australia it was for the purpose of owning the Convention grounds at Dandenong. When that property was auctioned(some went for freeway)it was sold as the property of the Christian Assemblies of Australia. SO!! we were allowed to lie and decieve others with the NON_Truth by saying we have no name or property?? Why didn't anyone let us know we were big fat liars.some by knowledge some by default. The "Truth"did not exist?? The new name was Christian Conventions of Victoria,Trustees Colin Storer,Alan Bird and Arthur Robertson. was revoked in 2017 when the Gov't announced the Redress where all victims of sexual crimes could sue the Institution that did or employed the perpetrator. Now the ministry of deceiption can say"we are not an Institution"? As an ex Worker said,"They are masters of deceipt". The "Truth"what is Truth?? It is not a LIE or Deception is it?? He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 17, 2023 21:21:26 GMT -5
NO NAME?? NO PROPERTY?? Not here .?? In 1931 when Bill Carroll registered Christian Assemblies of Australia it was for the purpose of owning the Convention grounds at Dandenong. When that property was auctioned(some went for freeway)it was sold as the property of the Christian Assemblies of Australia. SO!! we were allowed to lie and decieve others with the NON_Truth by saying we have no name or property?? Why didn't anyone let us know we were big fat liars.some by knowledge some by default. The "Truth"did not exist?? The new name was Christian Conventions of Victoria,Trustees Colin Storer,Alan Bird and Arthur Robertson. was revoked in 2017 when the Gov't announced the Redress where all victims of sexual crimes could sue the Institution that did or employed the perpetrator. Now the ministry of deceiption can say"we are not an Institution"? As an ex Worker said,"They are masters of deceipt". The "Truth"what is Truth?? It is not a LIE or Deception is it?? He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t. No, they are damned if they claim to have no name when they do have a name which is also registered as such. Nothing wrong with having a name, but it is wrong to say they haven't got one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2023 22:06:00 GMT -5
He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t. No, they are damned if they claim to have no name when they do have a name which is also registered as such. Nothing wrong with having a name, but it is wrong to say they haven't got one. Not everyone knew that. The Church never voted on it either to give it one. You will rarely hear any of the laity if ever call it or know about it. "Christian Assemblies", "Christian Conventions", "Assemblies of Christians", "The testimony of Jesus" etc etc...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 17, 2023 22:37:18 GMT -5
NO NAME?? NO PROPERTY?? Not here .?? In 1931 when Bill Carroll registered Christian Assemblies of Australia it was for the purpose of owning the Convention grounds at Dandenong. When that property was auctioned(some went for freeway)it was sold as the property of the Christian Assemblies of Australia. SO!! we were allowed to lie and decieve others with the NON_Truth by saying we have no name or property?? Why didn't anyone let us know we were big fat liars.some by knowledge some by default. The "Truth"did not exist?? The new name was Christian Conventions of Victoria,Trustees Colin Storer,Alan Bird and Arthur Robertson. was revoked in 2017 when the Gov't announced the Redress where all victims of sexual crimes could sue the Institution that did or employed the perpetrator. Now the ministry of deceiption can say"we are not an Institution"? As an ex Worker said,"They are masters of deceipt". The "Truth"what is Truth?? It is not a LIE or Deception is it?? He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t. No, they have done this because they don't want to be part of the Redress. With the amount of CSA being exposed they are running scared. Lies and deception is exactly what it is !
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 18, 2023 0:01:51 GMT -5
He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t. No, they have done this because they don't want to be part of the Redress. With the amount of CSA being exposed they are running scared. Lies and deception is exactly what it is ! A christian would never stoop so low. Surely not!
|
|
rudyw
Senior Member
Posts: 623
|
Post by rudyw on Feb 18, 2023 12:12:21 GMT -5
He did this to stay within the limits of the law. They’re damned if they register a name to keep it legal, & they’re damned if they don’t. No, they are damned if they claim to have no name when they do have a name which is also registered as such. Nothing wrong with having a name, but it is wrong to say they haven't got one. I agree if they register a name that they should be open about it. It’s not right to hide things like this. I never imagined that a name was ever registered. I only learned this through TMB. I still think people would bellyache if this Way sticks to the No Name policy & sticks to unregistered properties (private property). I agree though, there needs to be transparency regarding the registering of names such as Christian Conventions. Personally I have no problem using a name, or registering as a religious group IF there’s a legal need to do so. Keeping it a secret though isn’t right. The truth has a way of showing up eventually.
|
|