The whole idea of the
soul is something
that people have come
to accept as being
true. We may ‘know’
of the soul simply
because someone be it
a priest, a
writer has told us so.
Most of us have
never had a spiritual
experience – some
encounter with the spirit
or soul be
it our own soul or someone
else’s.
It’s funny how
we debate afterlife,
ghosts or other such
spectacles, and the
soul is just assumed.
Does this mean that the soul exists? If it
does so, then we acknowledge
that this life is not the only
existence we will know
of. Personally, I have no proof of soul. I
know that I can feel
and think, but could this not be the mind?
Why cant the body have
it’s own distinct functions that many would categorise as ‘soul integrity’.
Are souls only limited
to humans? [assuming that there is such a
thing of course].
Different religions believe opposing things.
Some argue that animals
have no souls and that only humans
have souls or spirit
and therefore we have a conscience and must
take into our hands
the fate of animals. Pet lovers will argue
that their friends indeed
have soul and character. But can character
be confused with soul?
Are they the same thing? I believe that if
there is indeed such
thing as soul or spirit and it’s not just wishful thinking on our part
and a fantasy to escape the idea that we are
mortal, then animals
too would have souls. But that’s just it isn’t
it? All these
concepts are just fantasy. Some may be true, some
not, but whether true
or not, it’s just a coincidence. It annoys
me when people argue
points on the basis of that they simply ‘know’.
It’s just an argument
to challenge whether or not you will question
their integrity, and
if you do, it’s disrespectful. How can anyone
learn anything if you
can’t ask questions?