Soul.

We spoke about having a soul on Thursday, and how in the Buddhist religion the idea that every individual has a soul is non-existent. This belief is alien to me. I am not necessarily a religious person but I have referenced my soul many times. This got me thinking though, what is a soul? Is it something in your very core that makes you who you are?

The definition of soul according to dictionary.com is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.". 


We hear reference to the soul all the time "hes a lost soul" when someone can't find their way, "they have a good soul" aka they're a good person. Is the idea of everyone having a soul an analogy for a moral compass or is it something bigger than can be comprehended? 


What does everyone else think about the idea of the soul?

So now we know a small amount about the historical Jesus his followers, and why everyone followed this peasant who altered many individuals perception of patriarchy among other things. I know that the gospels are embellished stories to show the significance of what Jesus did, but I want to know where God fits into all of this. I know it was a biography of Jesus, but from what I've learned over the years (I know I'm supposed to leave that out but since we are moving on I have been curious about this) the belief of Jesus and God kind of go hand and hand. Father and son, the holy family, etc. The kingdom of God is something we touch upon but once again that is not a literal place. He God also another embellishment of the history? or is that a whole other book?

Crossan.

We spent a lot of time Thursday talking about the actually history from when Jesus was alive to how it has been changed over the years. Professor Silliman described the accuracy of biblical information to a game of telephone.

So what I want to know is what makes Crossan right? Yes he has done research and compared many different scriptures from different texts and shown why they make sense. BUT he has also changed his views on several things since he has written this version and Professor Silliman has pointed out.  So are we supposed to put our faith in what Crossan says and assume its true?

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what Crossan says in his book I think it is very interest and well written. I just want to know why should believe what he writes?

Forgiveness.

 In class we had a brief discussion on forgiveness with Alex. It is a well known belief that forgiveness is divine, and Jesus forgave people so you should follow his example and forgive everyone too.

But is there limits to forgiveness? Awhile ago Professor Silliman told a story about a woman who falsely accused a man of raping her, and now they are friends many years later. Now that is forgiveness.

I think forgiveness is an individuals choice and telling someone that they have to forgive their friend is condescending. Even if you are told to forgive someone you might still hold a grudge if you aren't ready to "forgive and forget". Another topic we discussed was holding a grudge once you have "forgiven" the individual. The class was torn on if you are holding a grudge than you haven't forgiven them, and others considered a grudge and forgiveness as two separate ideas.

Forgiveness and holding a grudge go together like peanut butter and jelly. If you are forced to forgive someone than you will most likely still be holding a grudge.

I am not talking about forgiveness when it comes to borrowing your sisters shirt without asking. I'm referring to life changing altercations.

I have some experience with holding a grudge. My mother is a big believer in forgive and forget because that's what Jesus would do (nothing drives me more nuts than when she whips out this statement). Just because Jesus could forgive and forget doesn't mean you can pull his philosophy on forgiveness as a back up plan.

The difference between "illness" and "disease" is not a distinction I have ever made. In American society it seems as though the two words are used interchangeably.

In Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan, describes the two terms like this; "illnesses are experiences of disvalued changes in states of being and in social function, and diseases are abnormalities in the structure and function of body organs and systems." The distinction is very interesting. I have always thought of an illness as a cold and a disease as something more serious to you health.

I brought up in class on Tuesday the idea of a mental illness. I have never considered the choice of wording until now but, when someone is mentally ill they tend to act in a way that is looked down upon in our society...among other things. Alex said that maybe the word isn't being used correctly but if you think more in depth about it, yes there is something actually medically wrong with the person, but maybe there are bigger reasons why the word illness was used rather than disease.