As a bit of disclosure, I am not much of a spiritual thinker. I believe myself to be Catholic but am not one who attends Mass on a regular basis. So take this for what it is worth. It is a jumble of thoughts to be sure.
If one assumes that humans have an eternal soul, it is a curious arrangement when one really considers it.
Some believe the soul cycles through multiple lives on earth as part of a spiritual learning process. This implies the soul is not an integral part of the human body but rather something apart from it even if it "co-habitates" our existence as long as we're alive.
Further assuming the soul itself is of The Source, one ponders what seems to be a parasitical arrangement. "Parasitical" is a harsh word, yet we must recall the host (the human in question) was hardly in a position to grant permission for this union of spirit and flesh. It just happened that way, and is such a mysterious process that many go through their entire lives without realizing there may be "more than one" of them.
The explanation that this part of the soul's education or training is fine as far as that goes, but that explanation avoids discussion of the ethics of what, for humans, is a supernatural force binding to them without so much as a "if I may" ... hardly in line with the old "Prime Directive" of the Star Trek TV series.
The other thought along these lines concerns the lives of individual humans. Would we have ultimately been more content with our lives had we remained without that spark of The Source within? That is, if we had all remained ultra-primitive people of the bush and the grasslands, rooting around for bits of food ... living a more animal life ... would we be less burdened psychologically and fundamentally happier even if our lives would be harder, shorter, and, on occasion, more brutal than what we now know?
And why did we get selected as hosts anyway? Why not chimpanzees or orangutans? Again, one considers the issue of this being forced on the human animal as part of a process that seems to mostly, if not solely, benefits the soul's spiritual progression.
beer.jpg (Size: 2.19 KB / Downloads: 26)
If one assumes that humans have an eternal soul, it is a curious arrangement when one really considers it.
Some believe the soul cycles through multiple lives on earth as part of a spiritual learning process. This implies the soul is not an integral part of the human body but rather something apart from it even if it "co-habitates" our existence as long as we're alive.
Further assuming the soul itself is of The Source, one ponders what seems to be a parasitical arrangement. "Parasitical" is a harsh word, yet we must recall the host (the human in question) was hardly in a position to grant permission for this union of spirit and flesh. It just happened that way, and is such a mysterious process that many go through their entire lives without realizing there may be "more than one" of them.
The explanation that this part of the soul's education or training is fine as far as that goes, but that explanation avoids discussion of the ethics of what, for humans, is a supernatural force binding to them without so much as a "if I may" ... hardly in line with the old "Prime Directive" of the Star Trek TV series.
The other thought along these lines concerns the lives of individual humans. Would we have ultimately been more content with our lives had we remained without that spark of The Source within? That is, if we had all remained ultra-primitive people of the bush and the grasslands, rooting around for bits of food ... living a more animal life ... would we be less burdened psychologically and fundamentally happier even if our lives would be harder, shorter, and, on occasion, more brutal than what we now know?
And why did we get selected as hosts anyway? Why not chimpanzees or orangutans? Again, one considers the issue of this being forced on the human animal as part of a process that seems to mostly, if not solely, benefits the soul's spiritual progression.
beer.jpg (Size: 2.19 KB / Downloads: 26)
Fire In The Hole
