Soul

I recklesssly entered a section on etymology, since I thought it was significant. Feel free to improve on it, but please let some of the original intent stay put. The word "soul" did not exist in the times of jesus, socrates or aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations into the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that since the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in hebrew or arameic, and only partly in greek, that the word should not exist in the bible. I will not go that far, since all translation is a matter of interpretation, but this detail becomes significant if one insists that the original scriptures are the source of the meaning of the words. ---- Yep, a can o' worms. Actually, I know some Christians who deny that everyone's soul is immortal. In fact, they have quite a few scriptures that they use to support their position, but it basically is based on the idea that an immortal soul was not a Christian concept originally, but rather a view based on Greek Philosophy. In fact, the argument is actually integral to an answer to the question 'Why would you want to become a Christian?', since it says 'because only Christians have eternal life (given to them by God)'. :Sure. Ask the average Christian what will happen after death and they will reply that their soul will rise up to heaven. But Chistian dogma has always taught the resurrection of the body. The whole "soul" notion is technically speaking a manichaean heresy. ::Just a commnet. ressurection body according to the Apostlic Creed? Then I added the Orthodox Faithful don't confess, although its content they are agree. They confess the Necean Creed which says "the ressurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come". And the eternal life is a gift in the world to come according to the dogma. As for "rising up to the Heaven" it is a preveledge for saints and blessed. ---- Hey! Somebody should really expound on the word pneuma, which I think is another Greek word for "soul", which also means "breath", but may be a different connotation. For all I know, it could be the Hebrew word which is associated with "soul", but I am obviously an amateur and don't know the biblical languages. The tripartite soul, which is Plato's doctrine, should be mentioned, as should Augustinian doctrines of the soul, the Hellenistic doctrine of the perturbations of the soul, and the influence of all of these on subsequent religious thought. That is, someone who is not so uneducated, young, and secularized in education as myself. --JQ Another idea for views to mention are the ancient Chinese notions of hun and po. ---- I've just added the note (in the Other part) about Otherkin/therianthropy; however, I'm very concious of the fact that I worded it extremely badly and as if the phenomena are considered invalid/delusional. Which is most certainlly not what I'm trying to convey- not only because of the "no bias" policy, but because I'm Otherkin myself! User:Kistaro 22:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC) ---- Is Wiki a Protestants-only club? I find it very INTERESTING, to say the least that Purgatory and "soul sleep" are brushed aside as mere wacky, loony, minority fringe beliefs in Christianity. User:Dogface 14:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) ---- "people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death" ... this needs better wording (and I can't think of a satisfactory way to do so offhand, without making the sentence very bulky) but I think it is quite rare for bodies to "cease to exist" at death. User:Muke 06:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) == "Immaterial" == What on earth are you talking about snoyes? I see no references suggesting the "immaterial" property of the soul here. I don't know anyone who thinks the soul is immaterial. Quite to the contrary, there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person. there have been a variety of films regarding this topic. Please cite your sources, and do some research before undoing others work. thank you. User:Sam Spade 08:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) :"''there is are a goodly number of people who believe it has a weight, or can be visable when departing a dying person.''" ::Sources? I don't deny that some people believe this, what I do deny is that the common definition does not include the "immaterial" property. :"''Please cite your sources''" ::[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576957/Soul.html], [http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/soul.asp], [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=70573&tocid=0&query=soul&ct=], [http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=soul], etc. :"''do some research before undoing others work''" ::''Throwing stones in glass houses.'' :- User:Snoyes 09:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thank you for your citations. I appologise for insinuating lack of research on your part. User:Sam Spade 09:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) "Scientists have tried to measure the soul." Soul is religious term and religious terms cannot be used in science. So scientists have tried to measure what? Please explain in scientific terms. User:Tkorrovi 22:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==citations== why did you remove the citations? Please review wikipedia:verifiability. User:Sam Spade 10:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) :It makes the page ugly, harder to edit, is distracting while reading, and basic facts such as the fact that "soul" is commonly defined as being immaterial don't need to be referenced to outside sources on the page. They are referenced on this talk page, and that is good enough. I would be embarrassed to see wikipedia relying on "verifiability" by linking to a ghost-busters website. - User:Snoyes 10:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) Verifiability does not mean a tertiary source. User:Danny 10:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) Yes, it does. It means whatever sources are available. if you have a better source, provide one. User:Sam Spade 10:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) -- The idea of the soul goes much beyond religion, which is what I see this article is primarily focused on: religious viewpoints of soul. Two additions: The classics idea - Plato's idea and arguement for the existance of souls, and some current arguements from philosophy about the nature of soul, if it exists, etc. --User:ShaunMacPherson 06:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) _____ Did some editing on the Buddhist handle on the concept to make it a little plainer and remove some of the all too common (in writing about Buddhism) padding words that detract from the meaning and make it all rather enigmatic. Also replaced the word 'energy' with 'essence' in the initial definition as this was a misuse of the word. Fleshed out the Atheist section a little with a link to the wishful thinking fallacy. Perhaps the Atheist section should be included in the sections of all the other phillosophies and religions rather than get special treatment in the definition. I did however leave it in the original place Sorry to all for the multiple editions, these are just minor corrections and improvements on my first take.--User:Nick-in-South-Africa 10:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Sam's removed that wishful thinking link twice now, calling it POV. I disagree; that line is describing what some atheists believe to be the basis for widespread belief in souls, which is IMO a relevant fact to include in this article. It would only be POV if the article stated that belief in a soul ''was'' wishful thinking. User:Bryan Derksen 06:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---------- Someone has now moved the atheist section down to the section on other beliefs. I think that's the wrong place too because the whole point in the atheist stance is lack of belief. Many if not most atheists are sceptics and their reason for lack of a soul belief, just like their reason for lack of god belief is lack of evidence. Ways out of this include re naming the headning to 'Other views on the soul' or giving the atheist position its own section heading like all the major religions, mindful of the number of atheists in the World perhaps these infidels deserve their own section!--User:Nick-in-South-Africa 05:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) Wow I miswrote my edit summary. I should have written "put it away" instead of simple "put". User:KIZU 14:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Wishful Thinking == I can accept it as it now stands. I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts, so I don't see a need to go on at great length about it, and I think the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists, somewhat different from the soul itself. Funny that by eastern thought (particularly buddhism) an afterlife/rebirth is seen as an unfortunate circumstance resulting from lack of enlightenment, and parinirvana isn't so very different from the atheist conception of death. So maybe rather than wishful thinking, the concept of the soul is more based in cynicism ;) Of course buddhists don't necessarilly agree that their is a soul per se either, tending to reject the Hindu concept of Atman. User:Sam Spade User talk:Sam Spade 06:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sam >I think its pretty obvious tho why atheists wouldn't accept spiritual or religious concepts< I disagree, it may be obvious to you but this is most certainly not the general case; I posit that to many or even most theists there is nothing obvious about atheists reasoning at all. In many communities the idea of atheism shocks people to the core and they have no way of mentally dealing with it or the atheists reasoning >the concept of an afterlife is more what is viewed as wishful thinking by atheists< Yes and it is the soul that is the supposed entity that lives the afterlife or is the mechanism that transmits the essence of the deceased to another body or to some ethereal state. So the concept of soul and the concept of afterlife are inextricably linked and both are rejected by thinking atheists as wishful thinking motivated by simple fear of annihilation. >Of course Buddhists don't necessarily agree that their is a soul per se either< This is one of the major problems many have with Buddhism, how does the concept of anatta (no self) square with re-incarnation. If there is no abiding self what is it that gets reborn. Some modern atheist followers of Buddhist teaching reject re-incarnation.--User:Nick-in-South-Africa 08:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sam you reverted my edit and restored >Many atheists reject the concept of a soul as they reject religious concepts generally< The problem I have with 'as they reject religious concepts generally' is Firstly that it's not true. Atheism is nothing more than being without belief in any deity. It's perfectly consistent to be an atheist and be a follower of a non theistic religion such as certain sections of Buddhism which have religious concepts which said atheists do not reject. Even some theistic religions have concepts that many atheists do not reject, so your generalisation is inaccurate. Secondly this article is about soul not atheism, so the atheist position on other religious concepts, especially unnamed ones is not relevant, the proper place for this sort of thing is in the atheist article. I'll leave your compelling evidence phrasing, even though I think it reads badly as it seems you have an attachment to it even though it means exactly the same as my amendment.--User:Nick-in-South-Africa 22:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC ==The philosophical view== OK, so my long addition in the intro. on Aristotle's view was a bit much. But his view of the soul is very influential, and reasonably straightforward, so why not start with that? Then the various religious views of the soul can be compared and contrasted with it. Also it is a powerful, and to me convincing, non-religious conception of the soul and has an equal right to appear in the introduction as the religious concepts. Wouldn't at least my fellow atheists agree with that? I've added it back as a one liner taking up less space than the religious views, no one outside the Spanish inquisition could disagree with that could they? :"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, bring me the comfy chair...!" I was the one who moved the Aristotelian stuff downward. You raise a good point, that there are two distinct user groups making hay with the term "soul," the religionists/spiritualists and the philosophers. Each camp should be discussed. If you and the philosophers would like to go first, that's cool by me, so I moved the Aristotelian stuff back up to the top. However, an encyclopedia article cannot start in anyone's corner, but must start with a generalized and contextualizing introduction, so I reinstated the introductory paragraph, adding a reference to both the philosopher and spiritualist user camps. I left atheism in the religion section because their thoughts about "soul" are not being discussed as being within a particular philosophical school but rather as a reaction to the religious view. --User:Gary D 19:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Francis Crick == This article should have some mention of Francis Crick's ''Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul''. User:Rparle—User:Rparle User_talk:rparle 15:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) :Maybe you can add it to the References section. --User:Gary D 18:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) ::''References'' should be a list of materials used in compiling the article, not a list of further reading. Unfortunately I haven't read the book, but as a nobel-prize winning chemist's view of the soul I think it probably merrits mention by someone who has read it. (Francis Crick was co-discoverer of the significance of DNA, in case anyone questions his credentials.)User:Rparle—User:Rparle User_talk:rparle 00:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) :::Interesting; I don't know if Wikipedia maintains that distinction in its references to References. --User:Gary D 00:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) == Types of souls == The following is from the essay referenced. Some food for thought... ---- "Soul" is a blatantly overused term that conflates the following completely independent conceptual entities: * Immortal soul: An entity generated by forces within the brain, which survives the destruction of the neurons that originally generated it, and is in some formulations intrinsically indestructible under the laws of the ultimate reality. (If this soul continues independent, internally generated cognition equalling the capabilities of a physical brain, someone has a lot of explaining to do to with respect to split-brain patients, lobotomy patients, amnesiacs, and other forms of brain damage.) * Extraphysical soul: An entity which operates outside the laws of physics. (Strictly speaking this doesn't make logical sense, since anything that affects physical reality is part of physical law, but under some circumstances we might find it useful to separate that law into two parts - for example, if some physical patterns obey mathematical rules and others are totally resistant to rational analysis.) * Weird-physics neurology: Neural information-processing that uses the "weird" laws of physics. "Weird" is any physical pattern not visible in everyday, macroscopic life, or any pattern which isn't Turing-computable. We generally don't use the word "soul" in discussing this possibility. * Morally-valent soul: A physical entity representing the atomic unit of decision-making and moral responsibility. I'm reasonably sure this doesn't exist except as a high-level game-theoretical abstraction embodied as an "atomic" element of social cognition. * Qualia: The basic stuff of conscious experience, redness of red, etc. * Theological soul: A piece of God integrated into the human mind. * Mind-state preservation: Let's say our descendants/successors invent a time machine (or a limited version thereof such as a "time camera") and read out everyone's complete neural diagram, memories, etc. at the moment of death. That would be one form of mind-state preservation; any immortal soul that preserved memories, or information from which memories could be reconstructed, would also count. * Self-continuity: "If you go into a duplicator and two beings come out, which one is you? Is a perfect duplicate of your brain you? Does continuity of identity require continuity of awareness or just continuity of memories?" Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. I don't think such questions have real answers; or rather, the answer is whatever you decide it is. Though John K Clark's decision is worth mentioning: "I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am anything that behaves in a John-K-Clarkish way." It's at least conceptually possible that we have all these things, each as separate entities. For example, our brains might generate a structure of ordinary matter and energy that survives death but doesn't contain any useful information; our brain might also utilize noncomputable physical laws, simply to speed up information-processing, without that being intrinsic to qualia; we might have qualia generated by ordinary information-processing; our mind-state might be preserved by friendly aliens with time-cameras, or preserved at death by beings running our Universe as a computer simulation; God could place a part of Verself in each of us but translate it into ordinary neurocode running on a neurological module; and so on. Unfortunately, the confusion on these issues now runs so deep that any discovery in any of these areas would be taken to confirm the existence of an immortal extraphysical morally-valent et-cetera soul. [http://www.yudkowsky.net/tmol-faq/tmol-faq.html#theo_soul] User:Adraeus 22:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Deletion of "Atheist views" section== Adraeus, I think I should just revert what you deleted since your edit comment was rude and unconstructuve (you can't just say "fallacious" and "ingorant" and skip off). However I'm sort of okay with the removal of the Atheist view section altogether; I think it's fairly obvious that an atheist isn't going to believe in the religious definition of souls. How do you imagine a "the atheist view" section of this article going? : First of all, an atheist is merely a person who lacks theistic beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. There are two types of atheists: weak atheists and a strong atheists. Strong atheists actively posit a disbelief in the existence of gods while weak atheists neutrally lack belief in gods altogether. Whether or not an atheist believes or disbelieves in the concepts of soul is not a component of the definition of atheism. There are some atheists which reject the concept of soul altogether and there are some, like Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, whom are informed enough to know of the various types of soul concepts and are tolerant of the possibility of a "soul" existing. That said, there are also theists that believe or disbelieve in soul concepts but that does not make belief or disbelief in souls a component of the definition of theism or atheism. I don't think a section that describes atheists as lacking belief in souls would be fair or accurate. Certainly a section regarding organized forms of belief or disbelief in souls would be appropriate though. User:Adraeus 20:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Maybe you could put some of what you've written here into a new "Atheist views" section; revision, even wholesale revision, usually goes down better than deletion. --User:Gary D 20:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) ::To the extent that the word "soul" has acquired a religious sense (if not, this Wiki article would probably not exist) over the years, I think it's perfectly accurate and fair to state something like "atheists do not as a rule believe in the soul". From there you can go into "well, some do for some definition of the word 'soul' and/or some definition of 'atheist'" and enlighten us with your great learning, Adraeus. --User:Fleacircus 22:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Aristotle's view on soul? == Hello, I thought I'd bring up a few things here that I'd like someone (who knows a little better) to add. In the section on aristotle's view of the soul, the term "core essense" I think is a little vague; it may be a little easier for some readers to understand if you were to use a final cause to describe what the soul was (i.e. "animating principle" .... as stated in De Anima, although I can't remember where). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Aristotle believe in the immortality of the rational soul? "[...]This is a state, or a potential for actual, or 'second', activity. "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for him, analogous to "humans have bodies for rational activity," and the potential for rational activity thus constituted the essence of a human soul" ... wouldn't it be a little more accurate to also make the distinction of the different types of souls (i.e. vegitative soul, animal soul, and rational soul), and state that the Human, rational soul also contained characteristcs of the animal soul? just a few simple questions, sorry if you've already been over this. Peace. -Cripps

Soul

:''For other meanings, see Soul#Disambiguation'' The soul according to many Religion and Philosophy traditions, is the ''ethereal substance'' — spirit (Hebrew language:''rooah'' or ''nefesh'') — particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being. The concept of the soul has strong links with notions of an afterlife, but opinions may vary wildly even within a given religion as to what happens to the soul after death. Many within these religions and philosophies see the soul as immaterial, while others consider it possibly material. :Note: This article uses the word "soul" in the common form, and deals largely with varied concepts from which the concept originates, and to which it relates. The use of the word ''soul'' often does not explicitly correspond to usage associated with any particular view or belief, including usage in Western culture and Eastern culture religious texts and in the writings of Plato or Aristotle. ==Etymologies== The current English word "soul" may have originated from Old English ''sawol'', documented in 970 AD, which has possible etymological links with a Germanic root from which we also get the word "sea". The old German word is called 'se(u)la', what means: belonging to the sea (ancient Germanic conceptions involved the souls of the unborn and of the dead "living" be part of a medium similar to water). Ancient Greeks sometimes referred to the soul as ''psyche'' (as in modern English ''psychology''). Aristotle's works in Latin translation used the word ''anima'' (as in ''animated''), which also means "breath". In the New Testament, the original word may sometimes better translate as "life", as in : : "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew) If you exchange the word "soul" for "life" in the sentence above, the statement may seem less profound. The Latin root of the related word ''spirit'', like ''anima'', also expresses the idea of "breath". The various origins and usages demonstrate not only that what people call "soul" today has varied in meaning during history, but that the word and concept themselves have changed in their implications. ==Philosophical views== The Ancient Greeks used the same word for 'alive' as for 'ensouled'. So the earliest surviving western philosophy view might suggest that the soul makes living things alive. ===Socrates and Plato=== Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considers the soul as the essence of a person, as that which decides how we act. He considered this essence as an incorporeal occupant of our being. The Platonic soul comprises three parts: # the reason (mind or logos) # the appetite (body or passion) # spirit (emotion or pathos). Each of these has a function in a balanced and peaceful soul. The reason equates to the mind. It corresponds to the charioteer directing the balanced horses of appetite and spirit. It allows for logic to prevail and for the optimisation of balance. The appetite drives humankind to seek out its basic bodily needs. Yet when the passion controls us, master passion drives us to hedonism in all forms. This is the basal and most feral state. The spirit comprises our emotional motive, that which drives us to acts of bravery and glory. If left unchecked it will lead to ''hubris'' -- the most fatal of all flaws in the Greek view. ===Aristotle=== Aristotle, following Plato, defined the soul as the core essence of a being, but argued against it having a separate existence. For instance, if a knife had a soul, the act of cutting would be that soul, because 'cutting' is the essence of what it is to be a knife. Unlike Plato and the religious traditions, Aristotle did not consider the soul as some kind of separate, ghostly occupant of the body (just as we cannot separate the activity of cutting from the knife). As the soul, in Aristotle's view, is an ''activity'' of the body it cannot be immortal (when a knife is destroyed, the cutting stops). More precisely, the soul is the "first activity" of a living body. This is a state, or a potential for actual, or 'second', activity. "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for Aristotle, analogous to "humans have bodies for rational activity," and the potential for rational activity thus constituted the essence of a human soul. Aristotle used his concept of the soul in many of his works; the ''Nicomachean Ethics'' provides a good place to start to gain more understanding of his views. Aristotle's view appears to have some similarity to the Buddhist 'no soul' view (see below). For both there is certainly no 'separable immortal essence'. It may simply become a matter of definition, as most Buddhists would agree, surely, that one can use a knife for cutting. They might, perhaps, stress the impermanence of the knife's cutting ability, and Aristotle would probably agree with that. ==Religious views== ===Buddhist beliefs=== According to Buddhism teaching, all things are impermanence, in a constant state of flux, all is transient, and no abiding state exists. This applies to humanity as much as to anything else in the cosmos; thus, there is no unchanging and abiding self. Our sense of "I" or "me" is simply a sense belonging to the ever-changing entity that (conventionally speaking) is us, our body, and mind. This expresses in essence the Buddhist principle of ''anatta'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman). Buddhists hold that the delusion of a permanent, abiding self is one of the main root causes for human conflict on the emotional, social and political levels. They add that understanding of ''anatta'' (or "not-self") provides an accurate description of the human condition, and that this understanding allows "us" to go beyond "our" mundane desires. Nirvana is solely recognized as being distinct. Buddhists can speak in conventional terms of the soul or of self as a matter of convenience, but only under the conviction that ultimately "we" are changing entities. At death, the body and mind disintegrate; if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being, that is, a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness. Thus, in Buddhist teaching, a being that is born is neither entirely different nor exactly the same as it was prior to rebirth (Buddhist). However, scholars such as Shirō Matsumoto have argued that a curious development occurred in Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, stemming from the Cittamatra and Vijnanavada schools in India: although this school of thought denies the permanent personal selfhood, it affirms concepts such as Buddha-nature, Tathagatagarbha, Rigpa, or "original nature". Matsumoto argues that these concepts constitute a non- or trans-personal self, and almost equate in meaning to the Hindu concept of Atman, although they differ in that Buddha-nature does not incarnate. One should note the polarity in Tibetan Buddhism between ''shes-pa'' (the principle of consciousness) and ''rig-pa'' (pure consciousness equal to Buddha-nature). The concept of a person as a ''tulku'' provides even more controversy. A ''tulku'' has, due to heroic austerities and esoteric training, achieved the goal of transferring personal identity from one rebirth to the next (for instance, Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama a ''tulku''). The mechanics behind this work as follows: although Buddha-nature does not incarnate, the individual self comprises ''skandhas'' or components that undergo rebirth. For an ordinary person, ''skandhas'' cohere in a way that dissolves upon the person's death. So elements of the transformed personality re-incarnate, but they lose the unity that constitutes personal selfhood for a specific person. In the case of ''tulkus'', however, they supposedly achieve a "crystallization" of ''skandhas'' in such a manner that the ''skandhas'' do not "disentangle" upon the ''tulku's'' death; rather, a voluntary reincarnation occurs. In this new birth, the ''tulku'' possesses a continuity of personal identity rooted in the fact that the consciousness or ''shes-pa'' (which equates to a type of ''skandha'' called ''vijnana'') has not dissolved after death, but has sufficient durability to survive in repeated births. The compatiblility of these concepts with Buddhist orthodoxy remains in dispute. Many modern Buddhists, particularly in Western world, reject the concept of rebirth or reincarnation as incompatible with the concept of ''anatta''. They take the view that if there is no abiding self and no soul then nothing remains to be reborn. Stephen Batchelor, notably, discusses this issue in his book ''Buddhism Without Beliefs''. However, the question arises: if a self does not exist, who thinks/lives now? Buddhists hold the view that thought itself thinks: if you remove the thought, there's no thinker (self) to be found. A detailed introduction to this and to other basic buddhist teachings appears in ''What the Buddha taught'' by the Buddhist monk Walpola Rahula. ===Christian beliefs=== ====Various opinions==== Most Christianity regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human, and that after death, God either rewards or punishes the soul. Different Christian groups dispute heatedly whether this reward/punishment depends upon doing good deeds, or merely upon believing in God and in Jesus. Many Christian scholars hold, as Aristotle did, that "to attain any assured knowledge of the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world". Augustine, one of the most influential early Christian thinkers, described the soul as "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body". Philosopher Anthony Quinton said the soul is a "series of mental states connected by continuity of character and memory, [and] is the essential constituent of personality. The soul, therefore, is not only logically distinct from any particular human body with which it is associated; it is also what a person is". Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher of religion at Oxford University, wrote that "it is a frequent criticism of substance dualism that dualists cannot say what souls are.... Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..." The origin of the soul has provided a sometimes vexing question in Christianity; the major theories put forward include Creationism_(theology), traducianism and pre-existence. Other Christian beliefs differ: * A few Christian groups do not believe in the soul, and hold that people cease to exist, both mind and body, at death; they claim however that God will recreate the minds and bodies of believers in Jesus at some future time, the "End of the world (religion)." * Another minority of Christians believe in the soul, but don't regard it as inherently immortal. This minority also believes the life of Christ brings immortality, but only to believers. * Medieval Christian thinkers often assigned to the soul attributes such as thought and imagination as well as faith and love: this suggests that the boundaries between "soul" and "mind" can vary in different interpretations. * Jehovah's Witnesses hold beliefs that equate the soul with the person rather than with a spirit or a force which leaves the body at or after death. (Gen.2:7; Ezek.18:4, KJV) * The soul sleep theory states that the soul goes to "sleep" at the time of death, and stays in this quiescent state until the last judgment. * The "absent from the body, present with the Lord" theory states that the soul at the point of death, immediately becomes present at the end of time, without experiencing any time passing between. * The "purgatory" theory states the soul, if imperfect, spends a period of time purging or cleansing before becoming ready for the end of time. * The present Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the soul as "the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the ''spiritual principle'' in man." * Swedenborgianism teaches that each person's soul is created by the Lord at the same time as the physical body is developed, that the soul is the person himself or herself, and that the soul is eternal and has an eternal spiritual body that is substantial without being material. After the death of the body, the person become immediately conscious in the spiritual world. ====Objections to immortal soul teaching==== The idea of heaven (as viewed from a traditional Christian point of view) stands far removed from what Christ taught. He viewed heaven, not as a place where all righteous mankind (within a spiritual context) would reside, but as the capital city of God's kingdom. An Old Testament quotation (which adds nothing directly to the discussion of souls) states: "The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool." (Isaiah 66:1) Persons who had lived a "good life" were not to go to Heaven, but reside on Earth. "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." (Psalm 37:29) "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."�Matthew 5:5 "Evildoers themselves will be cut off, but those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth."�Psalm 37:9 "The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it."�Proverbs 2:21, 22 So, the question arises for most Christians, "If I lead a 'good life', why do I die, and what happens to me after I die?" The Bible says that sin causes death. It also states that when you die nothing remains of you. Romans 5:12 tells us: "Through one man [Adam, mankind's forefather] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned [by inheriting imperfection, that is, sinful tendencies]." "You [will] return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19) Simply stated, the Bible teaches that death forms the opposite of life. In Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, we read: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." "Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish."-Psalm 146:3, 4 "The soul that is sinning - it itself will die," the Bible emphatically states. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Acts 3:23; Revelation 16:3) Some of the Biblical passages above appear to support the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as opposed to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Nowhere in the Biblical writings does the term "immortal" appear together with the term "soul". The Bible supports the theory that the soul equates to the person, and that the soul dies, but that God will resurrect the soul again on the last day. The resurrected person will not reside in heaven, but on the earth. Those who believing in an immortal the soul which cannot die and which goes to either heaven or hell at death, if they wish for Biblical correctness would also have to accept that the soul in heaven or hell would have no knowledge of its past or present condition, as according to the teaching of the Bible, the thoughts and consciousness of the individual perishes at death. Psalm 146:3, 4 The concept of the immortality of the soul entered into Christian teaching ''via'' converts who brought the teachings of their former religions into Christianity. ====In favor of a conscious non-material entity ("soul") that survives bodily death==== Some traditional Christians argue that the Bible teaches the survival of a conscious self after death. They interpret this as an intermediate state, before the deceased unite with their Resurrection bodies and restore the psychosomatic unity that existed from conception and which death disrupts. These Christians point out: * Rachel's death in Genesis 35:18 equates with her soul (Hebrew ''nephesh'') departing. And when Elijah prays in 1 Kings 17:21 for the return of a widow's boy to life, he entreats, "O LORD my God, I pray you, let this child's ''nephesh'' come into him again". So death meant that something called ''nephesh'' (or "soul") became separated from the body, and life could return when this soul returned. * Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross, "I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Interpretation: that very day, the thief will in a conscious way have fellowship with Christ in paradise despite the apparent destruction of his body. * Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus, both still conscious at the same time as the rich man's brothers lived on. This scenario preceded Jesus taking the souls of Paradise with Him to heaven, therefore Lazarus remains in Paradise. The rich man stood in another compartment of Sheol where he could see Lazarus but never cross over. * Matthew 10:28: Jesus says, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Here, the soul (Greek ''psychē'') appears as something distinct from the body and something which survives the death of the body. * Phil. 1:21-23, depicting the believer to "depart and to be with Christ", where the aorist infinitive (to depart) links via a single article to a present infinitive (to be with Christ). This linkage shows that the departure and being with Christ occur at the same moment. And since Christ dwells in Heaven, Paul anticipated going to Heaven at death. * Revelation 6:9-10 portrays the souls (Greek ''psychas'') of martyred saints as conscious and as asking God how long He will refrain from smiting the wicked on Earth. Once more, these saints consciously exist with God in heaven at the same time as evil people exist on the earth. * Matthew 22 : 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him (Jesus) with a question. 24�Teacher,� they said, �Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?� 29Jesus replied, �You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead � have you not read what God said to you, 32�I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob�[Exodus 3:6]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.� 33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. * 1 Corinthians 15 : 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (...) 29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day�I mean that, brothers�just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, �Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.�[Isaiah 22:13] (...) 35But someone may ask, �How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45(...) 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. ====Christian Gnosticism: Valentinus==== In early years of Christianity, the Gnosticism Christian Valentinius of Valentinius (''circa'' 100 - ''circa'' 153) proposed a version of spiritual psychology that accorded with numerous other "perennial wisdom" doctrines. He conceived the human being as a triple entity, consisting of body (''soma'', ''hyle''), soul (''psyche'') and spirit (''pneuma''). This equates exactly to the division one finds in St. Paul�s 1 Thessalonians, but enriched: Valentinus considered that all humans possess semi-dormant "spiritual seed" (''sperme pneumatike'') which, in spiritually developed Christians, can unite with spirit, equated with Angel Christ. Evidently his spiritual seed corresponds precisely to ''shes-pa'' in Tibetan Buddhism, ''jiva'' in Vedanta, ''ruh'' in Hermeticism Sufism or soul-spark in other traditions, and Angel Christ to Higher Self in modern transpersonal psychologies, Atman in Vedanta or Buddha nature in Mahayana Buddhism. In Valentinus� opinion, spiritual seed, the ray from Angel Christ, returns to its source. This is true resurrection (as Valentinus himself wrote in ''The Gospel of Truth'': "People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If they do not receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing."). In Valentinus� vision of life human bodies go to dust, soul-sparks or spiritual seeds unite (in realised Gnostics) with their Higher Selves/Angel Christ and the soul proper, carrier of psychological functions and personalities (emotions, memory, rational faculties, imagination,...) will survive - but will not go to Pleroma or Fullness (the source of all where resurrected seeds that have realised their beings as Angels Christ return to). The souls stay in "the places that are in the middle", the worlds of Psyche. In time, after numerous purifications, the souls receive "spiritual flesh", i.e. a resurrection body. This division appears rather puzzling, but not dissimilar to Kabbalah, where ''neshamah'' goes to the source and ''ruach'' is, undestructed and indestructible, but unredeemed, relegated to a lower world. Similarly, according to Valentinus, complete resurrection occurs only after the end of Time (in the Christian worldview), when transfigured souls who have acquired spiritual flesh finally re-unite with the perfect, individual Angel Christ, residing in the Pleroma. Valentinus sees this as final salvation. Many non-denominational Christians, and indeed many people who ostensibly subscribe to denominations having clear-cut dogma on the concept of soul, take an "� la carte" approach to the belief, that is, they judge each issue on what they see as its merits and juxtapose different beliefs from different branches of Christianity, from other religions, and from their understanding of science. See also Christian eschatology. ===Hindu beliefs=== In Hinduism, the Sanskrit word most closely corresponding to soul is "Atman", which can mean soul or even God. It is seen as the portion of Brahman within us. Hinduism contains many variant beliefs on the origin, purpose, and fate of the soul. For example, advaita or non-dualistic conception of the soul accords it union with Brahman, the absolute uncreated (roughly, the Godhead), in eventuality or in pre-existing fact. Dvaita or dualism concepts reject this, instead identifying the soul as a different and incompatible substance. ===Islamic beliefs=== According to the Qur'an of Islam (15:29), the creation of man involves Allah "breathing" a soul into him. This intangible part of an individual's existence is "pure" at birth and has the potential of growing and achieving nearness to God if the person leads a righteous life. At death the person's soul transitions to an eternal afterlife of bliss, peace and unending spiritual growth (Qur�an 66:8, 39:20). This transition can be pleasant (Heaven) or unpleasant (Hell) depending on the degree to which a person has developed or destroyed his or her soul during life (Qur�an 91:7-10). In Sufism, Islamic mysticism, elaborate doctrines on the soul have developed, as explained in the article on Sufism#Sufi_psychology. ===Jainist beliefs=== Jainism believe in a jiva, an immortal essence of a living being analogous to a soul, subject to the illusion of maya (illusion) and evolving through many incarnations from mineral to vegetable to animal, its accumulated karma determining the form of its next birth. ===Jewish beliefs=== Jew views of the soul begin with the book of Genesis, in which verse 2:7 states, "the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (New JPS) The Hebrew Bible offers no systematic definition of a soul; various descriptions of the soul exist in classical rabbinic literature. Saadia Gaon, in his ''Emunoth ve-Deoth'' 6:3, explained classical rabbinic teaching about the soul through the lens of neo-Aristotelian philosophy. He held that the soul comprises that part of a person's mind which constitutes physical desire, emotion, and thought. Maimonides, in his ''The Guide to the Perplexed'', explained classical rabbinic teaching about the soul through the lens of neo-Aristotelian philosophy, and viewed the soul as a person's developed intellect, which has no substance. Kabbalah (esoteric Jewish mysticism) saw the soul as having three elements. The Zohar, a classic work of Jewish mysticism, posits that the human soul has three elements, the ''nefesh'', ''ru'ah'', and ''neshamah''. A common way of explaining these three parts follows: *''Nefesh'' - the lower or animal part of the soul. It links to instincts and bodily cravings. It is found in all humans, and enters the physical body at birth. It is the source of one's physical and psychological nature. The next two parts of the soul are not implanted at birth, but are slowly created over time; their development depends on the actions and beliefs of the individual. They are said to only fully exist in people awakened spiritually: *''Ruach'' - the middle soul, or spirit. It contains the moral virtues and the ability to distinguish between good and evil. In modern parlance, it equates to psyche or ego-personality. *''Neshamah'' - the higher soul, Higher Self or super-soul. This distinguishes man from all other life forms. It relates to the intellect, and allows man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. This part of the soul is provided both to Jew and non-Jew alike at birth. It allows one to have some awareness of the existence and presence of God. In the Zohar, after death ''Nefesh'' disintegrates, ''Ruach'' is sent to a sort of intermediate zone where it is submitted to purification and enters in "temporary paradise", while ''Neshamah'' returns to the source, the world of Platonic ideas, where it enjoys "the kiss of the beloved". Supposedly after resurrection, ''Ruach'' and ''Neshamah'', soul and spirit re-unite in a permanently transmuted state of being. The ''Raaya Meheimna'', a Kabbalistic tractate always published with the Zohar, posits two more parts of the human soul, the ''chayyah'' and ''yehidah''. Gershom Scholem wrote that these "were considered to represent the sublimest levels of intuitive cognition, and to be within the grasp of only a few chosen individuals": *''Chayyah'' - The part of the soul that allows one to have an awareness of the divine life force itself. *''Yehidah'' - the highest plane of the soul, in which one can achieve as full a union with God as is possible. ====Extra soul states==== Both Rabbinic and kabbalistic works also posit a few additional, non-permanent states to the soul that people can develop on certain occasions. These extra souls, or extra states of the soul, play no part in any afterlife scheme, but are mentioned for completeness. * ''Ruach HaKodesh'' - a state of the soul that makes prophecy possible. Since the age of classical prophecy passed, no one receives the soul of prophecy any longer. * ''Neshamah Yeseira'' - The supplemental soul that a Jew experiences on Shabbat. It makes possible an enhanced spiritual enjoyment of the day. This exists only while one observes Shabbat; it can be lost and gained depending on one's observance. * ''Neshamah Kedosha'' - Provided to Jews at the age of majority (13 for boys, 12 for girls), and related to the study and fulfillment of the Torah commandments. It exists only when one studies and follows Torah; it can be lost and gained depending on one's study and observance. For more detail on Jewish beliefs about the soul see Jewish eschatology. ===Other religious beliefs and views=== In Egyptian Mythology, a individual was believed to be made up of various elements, some physical and some spiritual. See the article ''Egyptian soul'' for more details. These are the two parts which the ancient Chinese believed constitute every person's soul. The ''p�o'' is the visible personality indissolubly attached to the body, while the ''hun'' is its more ethereal complement also interpenetrating the body, but not of necessity always tied to it. The hun in its wanderings may be either visible or invisible; if the former, it appears in the guise of its original body, which actually may be far away lying in a trance-like state tenanted by the p�o. And not only is the body duplicated under these conditions, but also the garments that clothe it. Should the hun stay away permanently, death results. Some transhumanisms believe that it will become possible to perform mind transfer, either from one human body to another, or from a human body to a computer. Operations of this type (along with teleportation), raise philosophical questions related to the concept of the Soul. Crisscrossing specific religions, the phenomenon of therianthropy and belief in the existence of otherkin also occur. One can perhaps better describe these as phenomena rather than as beliefs, since people of varying religion, ethnicity, or nationality may believe in them. Therianthropy involves the belief that a person or his soul has a spiritual, emotional, or mental connection with an animal. Such a belief may manifest itself in many forms, and many explanations for it often draw on a person's religious beliefs. Otherkin hold similar beliefs: they generally see their souls are entirely non-human, and usually not of this world. Another fairly large segment of the population, not necessarily favoring organized religion, simply label themselves as "spirituality" and hold that both humans and all other living creatures have souls. Some further believe the entire universe has a cosmic soul as a spirit or unified consciousness. Such a conception of the soul may link with the idea of an existence before and after the present one, and one could consider such a soul as the spark, or the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives personal life . Some believe souls in some way "echo" to the edges of this universe, or even to multiple universes with compiled multiple possibilities, each presented with a slightly different energy version of itself. The science fiction author Robert Heinlein, for example, has explored such ideas. ==Science and the soul== Western science and medicine do recognize the concept of soul or the idea of a soul entity, but mainly as an element of Folk psychology. In contrast, Traditional Chinese medicine accepts the existence of a soul as more than just an idea (see Traditional Chinese medicine#Impact on TCM). Popular presentation of the dominant scientific view of the soul uses the "computer paradigm", which compares the brain to computer hardware and the mind (mental processes traditionally subsumed under the concept of "soul") to computer software. The departure of a brain/hardware leaves no place for functioning mind/software. Some, like the famous France neurologist Jean Pierre Changeaux, deny the appropriateness of the computer paradigm and propose an analogy with the anharmonic oscillator from physics. Needless to say, both notions have dismissed the concept of soul as a self-sustaining entity. Some investigators have tried to measure the soul, for example by attempting to measure the weight of a person just before and just after death in hopes of determining the weight of a soul. The results of these experiments remained equivocal, especially due to conflicting reports on the findings, and do not rank as good science: see [http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp]. Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis has the subtitle, "The scientific search for the soul". Crick holds the position that one can learn everything knowable about the human soul by studying the workings of the human brain. In his book ''Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge'', E. O. Wilson took note of the fact that sociology has identified belief in a soul as one of the universal human cultural elements. Wilson suggested that biologists need to seriously investigate how human genes predispose people to believe in a soul. Daniel Dennett has championed the idea that the human survival strategy depends heavily on adoption of the intentional stance, a behavioral strategy that predicts the actions of others based on the expectation that they have a mind like one's own (see theory of mind). Mirror neurons in brain regions such as Broca's area may facilitate this behavioral strategy. The intentional stance, Dennett suggests, has proven so successful that people tend to apply it to all aspects of human experience, thus leading to animism and to other conceptualizations of soul. A frequently documented phenomenon involves very young children (under the age of five) saying seemingly random phrases, spontaneity , with no readily traceable originating source, for example: "I remember when I died before". The parent-controlled flow of information that reaches the child does not account for the phrase, which most hearers ignore. Some people believe that a child can express past-life memories in this way. Dr. Ian Stevenson, a prominent member of the scientific community, has spent over 40 years devoted to the study of children who have spoken about concepts seemingly unknown to them. Dr Stevenson maintains a thorough scientific method of interview and Observation#The_role_of_Observation_in_the_Scientific_Method. In each case, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements. Then he identifies the deceased person the child allegedly identifies with, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories. However, it should be noted that a significant majority of Dr. Stevenson's reported cases of reincarnation originate in Eastern societies, where dominant Eastern_philosophy often permit the concept of reincarnation. Dr. Ian Stevenson results could also be discredited as a form of Cold_reading where the child can make any claims, and with all the cases of deaths in human history to search through the chances of finding a match to those claims are very likely. ==Other uses of the term== Popular usage often describes experiences that evoke deep emotions as "touching the soul". ==See also== * vitalism == Movie == * Ghost (movie) (USA, 1990) with Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore. * White Noise (movie) (USA, 2005) with Michael Keaton. ==External references and links== * [http://www.gurka.se/soul-defiling.php Beginner's Guide to Soul Defiling] * Batchelor, Stephen. ''Buddhism Without Belief''. * Swinburne (1997). ''The Evolution of the Soul''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. * [http://www.kodekitten.com/therian.html Therianthropy overview] * [http://swami-center.org/en/chpt/theology/page_3.shtml What Is Man] * [http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm Dr. Ian Stevenson: Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation] * Stevenson (1975). ''Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Volume I: Ten Cases in India''. University Press of Virginia * Stevenson (1974). ''Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation''. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia * Stevenson (1983). ''Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Volume IV: Twelve Cases in Thailand and Burma''. University Press of Virginia * Stevenson (1997). ''Reincarnation and Biology : A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects''. Praeger Publishers *[http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/souls.htm Do Humans Have Souls? - Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc] ==Disambiguation== * For the music genre, see soul music * For the chief city of South Korea see Seoul.'' Religious philosophy and doctrine SpiritualityMetaphysics simple:Soul

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

S

SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |

Words begining with Soul:

Soul
Soul
Soul-jazz
Soul-jazz
Soul1337
Soul1337
Soulanges_(electoral_district)
Soulangy
Soular
Soulblighter
SoulblighterEric
Soulblightereric
Soulburn
Soulbury
Soulbury
Soulcake
Soulcalibur
Soulchild
Soulchild
Soulcutter
Soule
Souled_Out
Souleymane_Ciss�
Souleymane_Kante
Souleymane_Youla
Soulfish
Soulfly
Soulfly_(album)
Soulfly_(album)
Soulfly_3
Soulfly_3
Soulfly_albums
Soulforce
Soulful
Soulhunter123
Soulhunter74
Soulhuntre
Soulhuntre
Souli
Soulics
Souliot
Souliotes
Souliots
Soulive
Soulive
Soulivong_Savang
Souljacker
Souljacker
Soulja_Slim
Soulja_Slim
Soulknife
Soulm8s
Soulmann
Soulmann
Soulmate
Soulmate
Soulmates_Never_Die_(Live_in_Paris_2003)
Soulmusic
Soulmusic
Soulnoise
Soulnoise
Soulpatch
Soulpatch
Soulpepper
Soulpepper
Soulpepper_Theatre_Company
Soulphonic_Soundsystem
Soulrider
Soulrider
Souls
Soulsbyville
Soulsbyville,_CA
Soulsbyville,_California
Soulscape
SoulSeek
Soulseek
Soulseek
Soulside
Soulside_Journey
Soulside_Journey
Soulsteel
Soulstice
Souls_and_Bodies
Souls_of_Black
Souls_of_Black
Souls_of_Mischief
Souls_to_Deny
Soult
SoulTaker
SoulTaker,_The
Souluk
Soulwax
Soul_(music)
Soul_albums
Soul_Asylum
Soul_Asylum_albums
Soul_Blade
Soul_Blader
Soul_Blazer
Soul_blues
Soul_Brains
Soul_Caddy
Soul_Caddy
Soul_Caliber
Soul_caliber
Soul_Calibur
Soul_Calibur
Soul_Calibur_2
Soul_Calibur_II
Soul_Calibur_III
Soul_Catcher
Soul_City,_NC
Soul_City,_North_Carolina
Soul_Coughing
Soul_Coughing
Soul_Coughing_albums
Soul_Crew
Soul_Crew
Soul_Cube
Soul_cypher
Soul_Edge
Soul_Edge_(Soul_Blade_in_Europe)
Soul_Embraced
Soul_Fest_2005
Soul_Food
Soul_food
Soul_food
Soul_Food_(movie)
Soul_Gem
Soul_Hunter
Soul_Hunter_(anime)
Soul_Hunter_(Babylon_5)
Soul_II_Soul
Soul_intent
Soul_jazz
Soul_kitch
Soul_kitch
Soul_Man
Soul_Mate
Soul_Mate
Soul_Mates
Soul_Mining
Soul_Music
Soul_Music
Soul_music
Soul_music
Soul_music
Soul_musical_groups
Soul_musicians
Soul_musicians
Soul_music_(disambiguation)
Soul_music_genres
Soul_name
Soul_of_a_New_Machine
Soul_of_a_New_Machine
Soul_of_Duelist
Soul_of_Socialism
Soul_of_the_Duelist
Soul_of_the_Fire
Soul_of_the_Fire
Soul_Pattinson_Telecommunications
Soul_Plane
Soul_Punisher
Soul_Reaver
Soul_Rebels
Soul_retrieval
Soul_Revolution
Soul_RevolutionPart_II
Soul_Revolution_II
Soul_Revolution_Part_II
Soul_Searchin'
Soul_Searchin'
Soul_Shine
Soul_side
Soul_singers
Soul_sleep
Soul_Stirrers
Soul_Survivor
Soul_theorem
Soul_to_Soul
Soul_to_Soul
Soul_Train
Soul_train
Soul_Valley_Temple