What happens if a being is never inhabited by a 'soul'?

All beings have souls.the body cannot live without one

george stone wrote on Jun 11^th, 2010 at 6:21pm:

All beings have souls.the body cannot live without one

That is what I have heard, too, George.  Without the "spark of God", or a soul, flesh cannot become animate. 

usetawuz wrote on Jun 11^th, 2010 at 7:31pm:

george stone wrote on Jun 11th, 2010 at 6:21pm: All beings have souls.the body cannot live without one That is what I have heard, too, George.  Without the "spark of God", or a soul, flesh cannot become animate.

If that's true then souls must be forced to be incarnated, right? :-?

I do not think it is forced upon anyone...in Spiritism, there is a line of thought that states each soul continues to reincarnate until it reaches a state of enlightenment and "light" at which time it may not need to reincarnate.  Free will being key, it is my understanding that we reincarnate as we are ready to move forward, taking our time to learn what we can in the afterlife and choosing our most promising incarnate lifetime to learn the lessons we hope to achieve.

While I personally do not yet have any knowledge of the reasons I have chosen the lives I have lived, I do know that there is nothing but relief upon my time of death from each of those I have witnessed leaving.  So going back to the afterlife is certainly home while living incarnate is the chore...but is it a chore or an opportunity?  Isn't this how we are taught to live life?  Aren't we supposed to make the best of the deck we are dealt and accept and learn and love while we are here?  That way each life holds not only what we have chosen to deal with in that lifetime, but also includes opportunities and events which enable us to focus our education and show ourselves what we have learned; to use our talents and growth to live a better life and to live through love and benefit others...others we know and love whether we know and love them here or not.  That is the way I feel about it...again, free will dictates what we do and time is not a concern...

I'm sure a body does function without a soul. There's just no one watching from inside trying to reach out.
Time is a curious thing though and with so many feelings waiting to be experienced, eventually every single life here will find a soul who's eager to experience exactly that. The last life lived may not be the last life chosen but here on earth all we "see" is that every living body is inhabited at this time.

wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 7:07am:

I'm sure a body does function without a soul.

Are you saying that a soul-less body can function, can carry out the needed exercises in eating, drinking, excreting, etc.?  While I believe that cells and biological matter can be kept "alive" by artificial means, are they really "living"?  Is that the distinction you are making? 

I have been under the assumption that each chance to inhabit a human body is taken because the opportunity to incarnate is prized in the afterlife...as such, why would they let any bodies and opportunities go to waste?  And further, if there were soul-less bodies, what would animate them, or provide their direction and actions?

Greetings.

   This is an interesting topic for me and one that I've pondered several times. Here is good article that discusses this topic:
http://www.west.net/~simon/brain-soul-consciousness.html

   My feeling is that soul is needed in order for consciousnes to be present in the physical body. I believe in the hindu concept of soul passing down from the atma (soul) plane and into the mental plane; then from there into the astral, causal, and finally physical bodies.

   In computer terminology, I think of it as the physical brain being the hardware, with the soul being the software.

Ralph

What if the number of beings exceeded the number of souls?

Inventech5 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:

What if the number of beings exceeded the number of souls?

I have nothing but the belief that the number of souls exceeds the number of bodies available to live in this 3d world.

Quote:

Are you saying that a soul-less body can function, can carry out the needed exercises in eating, drinking, excreting, etc.?

Yes.


Quote:

why would they let any bodies and opportunities go to waste?

my words; please read the whole post


Quote:

if there were soul-less bodies, what would animate them, or provide their direction and actions?

Genes, brain and experience; I'm sure a psychologist could name more than that.
I don't think it'd be good to go into detail here, because I don't think you'd follow me into a week-long discussion about free will, fate etc.

take care,
Vagabound

I guess I just cannot see it that way.  To me, what animates the flesh is the soul.  Genetics map the creation of the flesh and brain, while experience is achieved through fleshly activity directed by the soul...without said soul there is simply a body with nothing to run it.

As for the rest of your original post...I did read it and I had difficulty understanding it.  Did you mean that sooner or later all bodies obtain a soul but some are walking around out there at times without one?  That there are bodies going to certain places/doing certain things awaiting a soul who wants to experience those places/things?  That time dictates when and where a soul goes to animate a body already enroute to a particular event?  If so, these are certainly interesting ideas though I've not experienced anything like them myself.

As far as "the last life lived ... not necessarily the last life chosen", I really do not understand, but I completely agree that all we see are other humans "apparently" occupied by souls.

You have an interesting view and grist for some lengthy thought and conversation.   

 

If some people are currently living without a soul, then if they die, they'll never have an afterlife.  Anyone of us could be without soul right now, isn't that freaky think?  :o

Inventech5 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

If some people are currently living without a soul, then if they die, they'll never have an afterlife.  Anyone of us could be without soul right now, isn't that freaky think?  :o

Indeed...but I am ensouled as we speak.  I'm getting way too much input from guidance right now for there to be no one home.  In fact, while I have free will, I am getting no shortage of reminders that I am not doing what I had chosen to do...or rather, I am "dithering".  While I like the word, I cannot remember the last time I used it...if ever...and I am being chided by guidance that I am dithering. 

No body that has no soul can possibly dither.

I think the problem is the dichotomy which is made between the body and the soul, and the main thing in it is the noncritical use of the term "soul". One aspect of "soul" I've seen in some posts here is that is it something like a life-spending thing. This then would be a mediator between some more refined-matter soul and the physical body. And then we have a lot of bodies of different densities, but what is the soul then? Another aspect of the term "soul" is that of an eternal, unchangeable something. This might be to some degree true, but we can't use it then for saying a soul would incarnate in a body which is within time, cause and effect, karma and such things. Therefore, we should find a more integrated language, which would mirror more thoroughly what is really experienced rather than carrying old outworn habits of talking and thinking. More "awareness", less "soul" I'd say in short. The more a personal soul is propagated, the less the concept of free will is logical, which is an inherent part of the worldview of those who think in terms of here-a-soul, there-a-body, soul-gives-command, body-moves, as far as I can see.

So, simply discussing soul and body without knowing and or defining what the heck that means is not very beneficial I think.

Spooky

spooky2 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:

So, simply discussing soul and body without knowing and or defining what the heck that means is not very beneficial I think. Spooky

I completely agree with you.