What's more important - Soul Salvation or Soul Development?

My paper would be very short: "This assignment begs the question on whether an entity called a soul exists."

I guess I'd run with that as my disclaimer and approach the topic hypothetically. Like I would if I was making an argument for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (BTW the answer is 83 if you understand the math).

 

Isn't "V" covering this topic this season?

 

I can only speak for my self. Salvation is important, but if the purpose was only to get saved, then God would take away anybody who got saved.

As I read the Bible, salvation is only the starting point, then one progresses in the faith, and in the learning of truths, and in doing good works. That's what I understand by a spiritual development. James 2:26


What is your opinion?

 

This is a tough one to try and get out without delving more deeply into some things I really do not care to tackle today, but I believe that they are exclusive of each other in the Christian sense, as there are those that will gain salvation by accepting Christ that have not developed their souls (The man on the cross next to Jesus comes to mid...would his grant of Salvation mean that he had obtained full development of his soul?), also there may be people with more developed souls (the learning of truths, and doing of good works) that may not achieve salvation due to skepticism.

This one is a really tough one, as Philosophy, being part of academia, requires discourse, and discourse is eliminated if one is able to solve all metaphysical and physical argument by merely answering "God".

Interestingly enough, those that answer such questions in this manner have yet to answer "Why is God?"

I think, really, most of us believe because we fear the consequence of not believing if we are wrong, not because we are enlightened. At least if I really put my foot to the fire, this is why I think I believe.

 

That thing in your shoe?

 

You have already cast the question in loaded terms, so any input by us contrary to your preconceived notions will simply be ignored.

In Africa, they call that a closed mind.

 

Yes. The very act of seeking salvation is the development of the soul, so the entire argument is bogus.

 

If I were the instructor I'd give you a negative 1000 points for that since you said it "begs the question" rather than it "asks the question."

 

Sounds like you preconceived what my preconceived notions are. In Africa and everywhere else in the world would also call that a closed mind.

The more that I learn, the more I understand I need to learn. The only preconceived notion I have is to read, critically analyze and come with a conclusion which fits (my) reality the closest. And when I do that, at least I hope, my whole circle gets bigger. My sig should give you a hint towards that.

 

You used the word "cling." That is an emotionally loaded word. There is no way you can convince any objective person that using the term "clinging to a belief" isn't a negative casting of religion. It's very clear in the way you cast the question that your mind is made up. A referee for a publication would have tossed your article aside as soon as he read the question.

But then again, if your prof is liberal he'll let it slide.

 

Are those who say they are seeking salvation really seeking salvation. Or are they just trying to gain acceptance at the time with no real determination to make the life style change it takes to seek the salvation or development they say they "looking" for.

If you say you are Christian and have been saved - but you still do not follow any of the rules - instead that person uses the "I'm not perfect" phrase as a justification - then are you still a Christian. Or are you just trying to gain acceptance?

But if someone is truly seeking salvation - Than I completely agree with you.

 

Bad use of words - I agree - I'm not a journalism major. I have not ask my professor if he is a liberal but my preconceived notion would say he is....

 

It's not that it's a bad use of words. You used the term "cling to religion" for a reason, and that reason exposes your bias.

You exposed your bias once again, since you never asked whether those who were developing their souls were really developing them. Why add an additional requirement on one group of people but not the other?

Sorry, but I just don't think you can write this paper objectively.

 

I'm biased. Religion is silly. The end.

 

When you are talking about something as ill-defined as a soul, is there anyone anywhere that can write objectively?

 

Dear Johnny Mack. We have rejected your paper for publication. The end.

 

If he wants to write an editorial, fine. Just don't disguise it as legitimate inquiry.

 

Well, I am sure you are helping be with that - seems impossible to discuss things without prior environmental influence. Can anyone be completely objective? In any case, I am not giving additional requirements to anyone - I think they should all have the same requirements.

If I say I am a crip but I wear red and hang with bloods - am I still a crip? The question was as simple as that - I am not requiring anything - I have no power to do so.

 

If you are speaking about a "belief" system - then it is just that - a Belief - not a Fact. So how could any of it be legitimate inquiry.

 

Believing that religion is silly is just as much as a belief as believing that it is not. If your not careful, believing that religion is silly just may end up being your Religion.