The soul and drugs
-
Ive tried to post this question on a swedish forum, with little success. So here I go again. Im an atheist and I want to know what religious people think of this: If I consume alcohol or drugs, my "soul" gets affected , and my personallity and ability to make decisions may be altered. So if the "soul" is some sort of magical/spiritual entity that is hosted in the body, how come it can be affected by the materia that you consume (the drug) ? This is not ment to provoke or anything, I just want to see if those who beleive in some sort of god/whatever have any explanation why materia can alter the soul
Roger J wrote:
If I consume alcohol or drugs, my "soul" gets affected
No, I would totally disagree with that. Your mental state is affected, because your brain chemistry is messed with. This does not track directly to your soul being affected.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Actually soul appears in the old testament. Its a translation, but the concept didn't originate with the French Philosopher. Let’s begin with the Bible’s explanation of the "soul." The usual word for "soul" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word transliterated by the letters nephesh or nepes. We will use nephesh. This word occurs over 750 times in the Old Testament. We find one example in Genesis 2:7: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh]" (King James Version). The New International Version says "man became a living being."
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually soul appears in the old testament. Its a translation, but the concept didn't originate with the French Philosopher.
So your saying that it was invented a few hundred years before the French dude by some drug fucked monkey working on some piece of fiction that made it's way into the old testament.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
fat_boy wrote:
The mind might be effected by drugs
:laugh::laugh:
Yeah yeah. Nothing like a foreigner to be an English language pedant. You shoulud nkow that English is in fact a bastardised, gutter, scum language, almost totally devoid of any structure and suitable for only the lowest form of discussion. Thats why Newton released Principia in Latin, and why Shakespeare never wrote down his plays. They didnt repect the language.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Ok I still do not understand :-P What is associated with the soul? is it just the "life force"? , so when the body dies, the ego dies to, and all memmories and knowledge is lost? Im apparently completely ignorant in this area, just see the above threads where people mock me :)
Ok... I said I would get back to you. The soul is an immortal attribute given by God to people; while we don't know exactly when it is given, my belief is that it is given at the moment of conception - when life begins. The soul is not a 'life force' or 'mystical/magical entity'; it is the enbodiment of who God sees you as. The soul will exist after the body perishes; where you (your soul) spends eternity depends on life choices made. And that is another question entirely. Tim
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually soul appears in the old testament. Its a translation, but the concept didn't originate with the French Philosopher.
So your saying that it was invented a few hundred years before the French dude by some drug fucked monkey working on some piece of fiction that made it's way into the old testament.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
The Old Testament wasn't written by usual people but by inspired by God prophets. Without this said talking about the Bible has no sense. IMHO everything in this thread is about terminology, which is least important thing in faith. The most important is a good, free of sins life, which applies to a believer as well as to an atheist. Roger K wrote: "So if the "soul" is some sort of magical/spiritual entity that is hosted in the body" False - it is a separate being. If you're taking drugs then your soul suffers in this sense that you commit a mortal sin. It will not "feel drunk" because "you" are drunk. My advice is: Go to confession and reproach yourself for all these ugly things you did. Eeeergh... whatever
Greetings - Gajatko Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.
-
Yeah yeah. Nothing like a foreigner to be an English language pedant. You shoulud nkow that English is in fact a bastardised, gutter, scum language, almost totally devoid of any structure and suitable for only the lowest form of discussion. Thats why Newton released Principia in Latin, and why Shakespeare never wrote down his plays. They didnt repect the language.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
English is a highly evolved language that has assimilated many of the languages from the countries around it. It's highly expressive and highly adaptable. Where southern Europe had their renaissance in art. England had its renaissance in literature. Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many words. I can't believe he would have written so much and so well if he didn't have a love for the language. Newton would more likely have written Principia in Latin to give it more gravitas(he he).
fat_boy wrote:
You shoulud nkow that English is in fact a bastardised, gutter, scum language, almost totally devoid of any structure and suitable for only the lowest form of discussion.
:laugh: Yeah, right. Kicked your self in the nuts there.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius -
English is a highly evolved language that has assimilated many of the languages from the countries around it. It's highly expressive and highly adaptable. Where southern Europe had their renaissance in art. England had its renaissance in literature. Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many words. I can't believe he would have written so much and so well if he didn't have a love for the language. Newton would more likely have written Principia in Latin to give it more gravitas(he he).
fat_boy wrote:
You shoulud nkow that English is in fact a bastardised, gutter, scum language, almost totally devoid of any structure and suitable for only the lowest form of discussion.
:laugh: Yeah, right. Kicked your self in the nuts there.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus AureliusTClarke wrote:
Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many word
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations? No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved. Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing. No, he didnt respect it any further than the next time the doors of the GLobe opened. It is one of our countries odd quirks that his works SHOULD come to represent English so completely. I will agree that is is an evolved language. It has evolved precisely because it has existed for so long outside of any control, any official body to regulate it. Compare this with French for example.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
TClarke wrote:
Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many word
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations? No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved. Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing. No, he didnt respect it any further than the next time the doors of the GLobe opened. It is one of our countries odd quirks that his works SHOULD come to represent English so completely. I will agree that is is an evolved language. It has evolved precisely because it has existed for so long outside of any control, any official body to regulate it. Compare this with French for example.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations?
Most certainly. The people I know who have the greatest love of language and have gone on to make a career out of it love to play with the English language. Respecting a language doesn't mean rigidly sticking to the rules of its current incarnation. That's the mechanism of its evolution. Just like an organic system, it's inhabitants (in this case speakers of the language) try every combination of effects and what sticks is allowed to progress. This is seen to the greatest extent by its most talented inhabitants.
fat_boy wrote:
No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved.
I find it slightly absurd, the idea that Hamlet was written as a throw away piece. The greatness of his work has been analyzed and repeated by every successive generation and not been found wanting at all. In fact it has an enormous following and inspires even to this day. I imagine he was at least vaguely aware of this as he came up with it.
fat_boy wrote:
Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing.
Yes, that's what there for and he does it wonderfully.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius -
fat_boy wrote:
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations?
Most certainly. The people I know who have the greatest love of language and have gone on to make a career out of it love to play with the English language. Respecting a language doesn't mean rigidly sticking to the rules of its current incarnation. That's the mechanism of its evolution. Just like an organic system, it's inhabitants (in this case speakers of the language) try every combination of effects and what sticks is allowed to progress. This is seen to the greatest extent by its most talented inhabitants.
fat_boy wrote:
No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved.
I find it slightly absurd, the idea that Hamlet was written as a throw away piece. The greatness of his work has been analyzed and repeated by every successive generation and not been found wanting at all. In fact it has an enormous following and inspires even to this day. I imagine he was at least vaguely aware of this as he came up with it.
fat_boy wrote:
Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing.
Yes, that's what there for and he does it wonderfully.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus AureliusTClarke wrote:
Most certainly. The people I know who have the greatest love of language and have gone on to make a career out of it love to play with the English language. Respecting a language doesn't mean rigidly sticking to the rules of its current incarnation. That's the mechanism of its evolution. Just like an organic system, it's inhabitants (in this case speakers of the language) try every combination of effects and what sticks is allowed to progress. This is seen to the greatest extent by its most talented inhabitants
Like I wrote, compare English to French. French is tightly controolled by the state, and has beedn since 1620. As a result it hasnt changed at all since Voltaire. This is very, very different with English.
TClarke wrote:
I find it slightly absurd, the idea that Hamlet was written as a throw away piece.
If it hadnt been for the efforts of two actors after Shakesperes death, who collected what writen sources there were, and interviewed actors for the rest, we would have lost the lot. As it is we lost at least 3 plays that we know of. Shakespere DIDNT intend his plays to be given to history. They were for immediate consumption. (And yes, it is quite incredible that such prose as this: To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. could have been lost for ever)
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Yeah yeah. Nothing like a foreigner to be an English language pedant. You shoulud nkow that English is in fact a bastardised, gutter, scum language, almost totally devoid of any structure and suitable for only the lowest form of discussion. Thats why Newton released Principia in Latin, and why Shakespeare never wrote down his plays. They didnt repect the language.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Yeah yeah. Nothing like a foreigner to be an English language pedant.
:doh: :laugh:
Cheers, विक्रम
And sleep will come, it comes to us all And some will fade and some will fall
-
TClarke wrote:
Most certainly. The people I know who have the greatest love of language and have gone on to make a career out of it love to play with the English language. Respecting a language doesn't mean rigidly sticking to the rules of its current incarnation. That's the mechanism of its evolution. Just like an organic system, it's inhabitants (in this case speakers of the language) try every combination of effects and what sticks is allowed to progress. This is seen to the greatest extent by its most talented inhabitants
Like I wrote, compare English to French. French is tightly controolled by the state, and has beedn since 1620. As a result it hasnt changed at all since Voltaire. This is very, very different with English.
TClarke wrote:
I find it slightly absurd, the idea that Hamlet was written as a throw away piece.
If it hadnt been for the efforts of two actors after Shakesperes death, who collected what writen sources there were, and interviewed actors for the rest, we would have lost the lot. As it is we lost at least 3 plays that we know of. Shakespere DIDNT intend his plays to be given to history. They were for immediate consumption. (And yes, it is quite incredible that such prose as this: To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. could have been lost for ever)
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Whew! For a minute there I had misunderstood and thought you didn't rate Shakespeare. Clearly, that's not the case (sound of long breath of relief). Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language. Personally, I love it. As for its inconsistencies, If it's good enough for Witgestein to write the Tractatus in it's sound enough for me.
Last modified: 15mins after originally posted --
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life. Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck. "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius
-
Whew! For a minute there I had misunderstood and thought you didn't rate Shakespeare. Clearly, that's not the case (sound of long breath of relief). Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language. Personally, I love it. As for its inconsistencies, If it's good enough for Witgestein to write the Tractatus in it's sound enough for me.
Last modified: 15mins after originally posted --
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life. Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck. "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius
TClarke wrote:
Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language.
Well, I dont kmnow enough others really fluently to comment. I have heard foreigners applauding the ease of humour, poetry and music in English (this was compared to Dutch). However, my original pbjection was to pedantry. It is a mistake to be a pedant regarding the English language, it is too changable, too fluid, to, well, too lowly born to pedantic material. eg, why 'develop' and 'developement' Where is there extra 'e' from in 'developement', The French say 'develope'. This is more normal. With this, one could be a pedant (as said, French is very strict).
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
TClarke wrote:
Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language.
Well, I dont kmnow enough others really fluently to comment. I have heard foreigners applauding the ease of humour, poetry and music in English (this was compared to Dutch). However, my original pbjection was to pedantry. It is a mistake to be a pedant regarding the English language, it is too changable, too fluid, to, well, too lowly born to pedantic material. eg, why 'develop' and 'developement' Where is there extra 'e' from in 'developement', The French say 'develope'. This is more normal. With this, one could be a pedant (as said, French is very strict).
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I think we've reached agreement. The pedant's point, which I presume was that he believed you should have used affected instead of effected was certainly not worth the comment. For the record, even if English were super strict he still wouldn't have had a point. You wrote: The mind might be effected by drugs That could mean influenced (as in the meaning of affected). Or it could mean that there was a resultant change from the drugs (as in an effect). So close it's absolutely pointless to separate and if my memory of one of my English teachers is correct, the difference is only one that was imposed fairly recently. All the best
-
TClarke wrote:
Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many word
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations? No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved. Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing. No, he didnt respect it any further than the next time the doors of the GLobe opened. It is one of our countries odd quirks that his works SHOULD come to represent English so completely. I will agree that is is an evolved language. It has evolved precisely because it has existed for so long outside of any control, any official body to regulate it. Compare this with French for example.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
How long have you known Shakespeare? Did you guys drink tea together to discuss this? Heh, you guys and your speculations stated as fact.
This statement was never false.
-
TClarke wrote:
Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language.
Well, I dont kmnow enough others really fluently to comment. I have heard foreigners applauding the ease of humour, poetry and music in English (this was compared to Dutch). However, my original pbjection was to pedantry. It is a mistake to be a pedant regarding the English language, it is too changable, too fluid, to, well, too lowly born to pedantic material. eg, why 'develop' and 'developement' Where is there extra 'e' from in 'developement', The French say 'develope'. This is more normal. With this, one could be a pedant (as said, French is very strict).
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
We throw the e away. Its development.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A bit authoritarian there...
Because I didn't say please? :rolleyes:
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
do you support freedom of speech?
As a matter of fact, I do. But I also expect people to express what they're trying to say in proper terms if they expect a reasonable answer. Of course, you're free to babble on as you usually do. -- modified at 12:44 Wednesday 19th September, 2007
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
Good luck with that. I'll just sit back and watch you futilely command posters on a public forum what to type. :laugh: Babble.
This statement was never false.
-
Man, you are the king of super pseudo scientific babble. :doh:
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
I didn't claim it was science. Just a theory of mine. But thanks for taking a special interest. What, are you bored with Heinze? You need another target to pump up your ego? Do you get your thrills from sitting at a desk typing in insults? Maybe you should go sailing and get out more.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually soul appears in the old testament. Its a translation, but the concept didn't originate with the French Philosopher.
So your saying that it was invented a few hundred years before the French dude by some drug fucked monkey working on some piece of fiction that made it's way into the old testament.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Nope, saying the concept wasn't unique to the French dude. Thanks for playing and twisting my meaning out of context. I'm not promoting anything here by the way. Just pointing out that the concept is an old one. What's your interest in attacking me?
This statement was never false.
-
I didn't claim it was science. Just a theory of mine. But thanks for taking a special interest. What, are you bored with Heinze? You need another target to pump up your ego? Do you get your thrills from sitting at a desk typing in insults? Maybe you should go sailing and get out more.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I didn't claim it was science.
No, but you're careful to sprinkle it with all sorts of existing scientific terms. You call it a theory. So it sure sounds like you're trying to pass it off as science.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What, are you bored with Heinze?
He'll be pissed because you didn't get his name right. :laugh: I guess he's coming down off his salvia trip so you'll have to do in the meantime.
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
-
Nope, saying the concept wasn't unique to the French dude. Thanks for playing and twisting my meaning out of context. I'm not promoting anything here by the way. Just pointing out that the concept is an old one. What's your interest in attacking me?
This statement was never false.