|
Hi Glenn,
Thank you for your wonderful post. I find myself in agreement with just about all of it. There are, however, a couple points that I would like you to clarify for me. The first has to do with the nature of what you called the "life force" or "life itself". Please correct the conclusions I have drawn from what you wrote wherever I have gone wrong.
***life itself is not something that can be grasped through our five senses.***
From this, I conclude that the life force is transcendent. That is, it is not only outside and beyond the body, but it is also outside and beyond our physical environment, and is thus inaccessible to human scientific investigation.
*** If we look into the body, there is a greek term called "pneuma": something whose presence within the body give life, and whose absence means death. So, it's just like postulating that the soul ,which created by a deity, outside of man's own existence.***
From this, I am interpreting the terms "life force", "pneuma", and "soul" to be synonyms. Thus, the life force was created and exists outside of man's own existence.
***If man were made to live by some outside force or power, his body would indeed be no more than a machine,and he himself a mere puppet. ***
Since your premiss seems to be met, i.e., man lives as a result of the life force which is a force outside of man's own existence, can we not conclude that man's body is indeed no more than a machine, and his body a mere puppet?
By the way, that seems to me to be the only reasonable conclusion and it seems consistent with everything I observe and experience. Since there is only one life force, what we have is this one life force driving, in a sense, each and every one of us bodies, and vicariously experiencing each of our physical experiences. This would be similar to what an earth-bound operator of a remotely controlled lunar rover might experience while operating his/her rover. Or, it would be similar to what goes on in a virtual reality setup in which the life force experiences a world full of bodies and objects, when in reality, there really are no such things.
Since these conclusions make so much sense to me, they have strongly influenced what I believe. If I am wrong, I am very eager to correct my mistakes so that my beliefs might be drawn closer to the truth. Please help me by pointing out where I have gone wrong.
I will write a separate post with a second point of clarification I seek.
Warm regards,
Paul
|
