How do tulpas fit into your religion/belief system?

[Guest Rochambo]

I'd just like to throw another puzzle piece into this mess: birth. If it's God's duty alone to make people, why do you also need a pair of humans to reproduce? Even Jesus Christ had a mother and a father in addition to God. Also, if a human created by another human does not have a full human soul, what does that make us? We all had parents. I think whatever it is God does to the cells in the womb to make it human, He does to the neurons that are the Tulpa, or maybe even the Tulpa's form itself? That would mean you aren't making a soul but God is enabling you to bring life into the world regardless.

 

Well what happens in the womb has been pretty much discovered through science. We already know what happens to make babies, it just depends on who you want to give credit to.

 

As for your neuron theory.. ehhh.. I myself find it..odd.. I suppose but hey I'm not gonna say you're wrong. I myself don't know too much about what you guys think god's capabilities apparently are so.. yeah.

 

I'm just glad you guys are with us, I'm glad that people of all beliefs can come together with this whole tulpa thing. Honestly I'd expect you guys to be against it for whatever reason.

 

But hey, FOR SCIENCE.

[waffles]

Sorry I can't quote properly

 

Rochambo:

It's not entirely true that tulpas can only interact with things in your head. Look at switching: there (probably) the tulpa and the host switch states for a short time, meaning that the tulpa potentially has capability equal to the host.

Killing a tulpa isn't really immoral, as long as it is consensual (which is as it always seems to occur). Laws against euthanasia and the like are there to prevent exploitation of the system, not because mercy killing is morally wrong.

If a tulpa has a soul then it doesn't seem likely that 'killing' them would destroy the soul; it would presumably work like human mortality. Then again, if the host created the tulpa then perhaps they retain the power to destroy it completely.

 

Eightyeight:

You need a body because the soul alone can't interact with the world. Humans reproduce because it is the part they can do; as long as you are not a Creationist then you don't believe that God actually puts anything physical into the world after the very beginning. As such, the body is created by other humans, but the 'breath of life' from God makes it a full person.

It's not true to say that Jesus had two human parents: the Virgin Birth is pretty basic. Joseph was there because in Jewish culture at the time, Mary would have been stoned or at least outcast for sex outside marriage.

What exactly God does to give the 'breath of life' is not known or even really theorised, and is probably beyond our understanding. Either way, it is long given by the time you make a tulpa, and it probably doesn't have to be given again for another personality; unless God had a coughing fit when it came to DID patients.

 

Rochambo:

Actually making a tulpa is fine, it is just what a tulpa actually is that varies by belief.

[412]

No, definitely special. God's work is in higher regard than the work of man because he is God. What he does is intrinsically special; this means that human souls made by God are special. Since the same does not apply to the work of man, we can conclude that 'human' souls made by humans are not special.

 

Even if they are functionally identical, there is your difference above.

 

if human souls aren't unique we might be able to create one ourselves equal to that of gods , regardless if his is considered more special. (theoretically)

 

But it's not. God can help you with whatever He wants, but that doesn't mean it's His work. I said this before. If you are the primary agent (or even present at any level as one) in making a tulpa then it is not the same as God making a soul.

 

is your sons child yours?

 

God is perfect.

You cant have the goods without the bads, it is just not possible.

 

So he isn't perfect.

 

 

That is , the bible isn't perfect.

 

 

Aaaand souls. You guys seem to be interested in souls.... I don't believe in souls at all but if I was still christian, I'd still say calling tulpas souls is rather.. erroneous to say the least.

seconding this.

If we're assuming people have souls, my guess would be that a tupper's soul is an autonomous, but forever connected part of the original soul.

Nailed it.

No matter what position you consider your tulpas to be in relation to yourself, they are inherently subservient. For instance, you could potentially do pretty much whatever you wanted with your tulpa, while the reverse is not true.

 

If i'm not mistaken you wouldn't really be able to do that with a fully developed tulpa. For instance , Atascos case.

 

Ignoring the irony of "intelectually", intelligence doesn't really factor in here. A computer may be more intelligent (by some measures) than you, and yet it has no soul. Moreover a severely brain-damaged human may have little intellectual capability at all, less than that of a chimpanzee, and yet do they lack a human soul? These examples show that whether or not something is intellectual is irrelevant in terms of their soul.

This demonstrated, the argument for inequality by way of actual power still holds.

 

and this is why i belive that if souls existed at all they'd have nothing to do with tulpae.

 

Your consciousness (and/or personallity) =/= your soul.

[waffles]

 

if human souls aren't unique we might be able to create one ourselves equal to that of gods , regardless if his is considered more special. (theoretically)

But they are, and that's (in Christianity) undisputed.

 

is your sons child yours?

Well, no. Your son's child certainly isn't your son.

 

If i'm not mistaken you wouldn't really be able to do that with a fully developed tulpa. For instance , Atascos case.

Good point.

 

and this is why i belive that if souls existed at all they'd have nothing to do with tulpae.

 

Your consciousness (and/or personallity) =/= your soul.

I agree with you completely here.

[Sock]

It's been a while since I've said anything on this topic. It doesn't have much to do with the last conversation, but after months of researching, praying, and asking around, I've come to a different conclusion than I did the last time I posted, and I wanted to share it with others.

 

In short, tulpae count as children, and thus Luke 18:16 applies to them.

 

The tulpa's maker should love their tulpa just as one would love their child, and raise them in the word of God. Christian tulpa creators have made themselves a family inside their heads, and should treat them as such.

[tulpauser]

I consider myself an apathetic agnostic, so I don't really think any god that does exists could care one way or the other if one of the seven billion specks on this speck flying around a speck in a cloud of specks has a sentient partition of his mind.

[historical]

atheist. they fit quite well, actually.

[Forge]

spiritualist and heavy into the metaphysical practice. in my belief, almost everything is a tulpa, including most souls.

[NekoiNemo]

I believe in things you can see, touch or prove by science. So tulpae fits perfectly.

[myyinisafox]

I find no fault with creating a tulpa, I doubt a loving god would either. A tulpa is a product of your mind and so logically the tulpa can only be as good or evil as you are in any specific area (this is basically saying that the tulpa can be good/evil in any area = the extreme evil you have in one and the extreme good in another creating the boundaries (this is also open to outside stimuli but if you create a tulpa that is more evil then you you had to be evil enough to do that, it's a circle)). I am a Jehovah's Witness and tulpae, I feel, fit right into this amazing world we have. There's nothing mentioned in the bible about expanding your mind being from satan and it was mentioned much earlier that it should be shunned because it's rooted in Tibetan Budhism but from my understanding of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnessses and other "Christian religions" (loose term), the only guideline in place is the consideration of other's conciences. If they don't agree they don't need to know. In any circumstance, tact and trust are involved with an (I hate to say this) abnormal/uncommon hobby/practice/interest/exploration/science such as this. Some people are just narrow minded but I don't feel I should blame that on their religious views. And this is all my opinion apart from a couple facts from research I've done in the bible and information from a few members of my congregation (church). (sorry about the long post, these subjects just interest me)