On 5/27/2011 1:19 PM, Alan Young wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:12, Jason Van Patten<[email protected]> wrote: >> If it is possible for a soul to inhabit more than one body then the >> value of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant to the corporeal versions of >> that soul. Otherwise the soul would have or create a means to share that >> information with each of it's corporeal forms. Since most of us agree > Why would the soul *have* to share that information while instantiated > in corporeal form? out of a desire to prevent the consequences of good or evil actions to it's other forms >> that they weren't queen Cleopatra in a former life or alternate life >> (drag doesn't count) then it stands to reason that what we do is >> probably irrelevant to the soul only so long as it imparts that which >> the soul needs/desires. > I disagree with your conclusion. > > I'm not espousing this idea as truth, just a what if. that's fine. i'm just considering a what if myself, and it seems that if good or evil actions on the part of a coporeal form were meaning full to a soul then it would create a means (if it could or didn't already have one) to communicate and prevent undesirable consequences in it's avatars >> I personally reject the lifestyle this notion advocates however i cannot > This notion does not advocate anything, let alone a kind of a lifestyle. if good or evil is irrelevant to the soul then morality would seem to be optional to any grand truth that might exist.
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
