Emerson labored mightily with his ideas of the “Over Soul,” but in the end he could not help but give in to some confusion common to transcendental thinking. But it is difficult to divorce our minds from such thinking if we confine ourselves to humans comprised of body, soul, and spirit since there is confusion about where the heart is in such a definition. Whatever it is that animates at birth and departs at death is generally thought to be the spirit, but the soul is what the Bible declares needs “saving.”

However, where does the spirit belong in this? Again, the Bible has it that the spirit quickens, gives life, that the flesh profits nothing; but what of the soul? That seems somewhat indistinct when trying to separate what the terms heart, soul, and spirit really mean. Oftentimes the terms are used interchangeably, and one would be hard pressed to attempt being exact because of the confusion often resulting from such interchanging of terms.

The Genesis account has it God breathed the breath of life into the Adam and he became a living soul. Without getting into the discussion of male and female the distinction is God is a spirit, and through his spirit gave the Adam a soul through this spirit. The theological case is that only humans have souls as opposed to the beasts of the field. But what the soul is, exactly, this is not defined. But the Scripture has it, “The soul that sins shall die.” However, when it comes to heart, soul, and spirit the terms are quite confusing because they are not exact. Can there be anything with a claim to having soul without having heart? Can anything be “spirited” in the best sense of the word without heart and soul?

It is confusing. And when it comes to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to read the many theological twists and dancing on the issue of heart, soul, and spirit is a labyrinth of obfuscatory reasoning, and just where does the “mind” come into the discussion? Ah; now it becomes even more confusing. We can leave the Bible and theology to struggle best they can and resort to our dictionaries. But lo and behold; even these leave us with confusion! Well, in an attempt to sort through the confusion I have concluded politicians have neither hearts nor souls. That’s just to cover my bases; and if they once had souls, then I conclude they fall into the category of Faust.

So, I am willing to entertain the notion politicians had souls with which to bargain with Satan, and he may be in the business of collecting souls, though to what purpose is anyone’s guess. What would the Devil do with them? More to the point, just what value would you put on the soul of a politician? Anyone have change for a penny?

No matter how you try to define your soul, what about babies? Do babies have souls? The Roman Church grappled with the question and came up with the doctrine of “Limbo.” But Pope Benedict XVI called for a commission to consider this doctrine. After long hearings and discussion it was concluded baptism was essential for salvation, but with a caveat. Father Paul McPartlan, a British priest and a member of the commission, said: "We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen to unbaptised children but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

Ok, so the church didn’t take up the question about politicians. But babies and very young children simply had to have a place in the theology of the Roman Church. For my part, the theologians of the church should have paid more attention to the “age of accountability” than caving to putting the whole affair off on God. But the theologians of the Roman Church are not dummies; these are exceptionally well educated and intelligent men. However, it is for this reason that despite the Pope himself being such an intelligent scholar the theologians of the church realized the wicket was becoming increasingly stickier the deeper they delved into his request to address the issue of Limbo.

But in the case of Protestants the wicket isn’t any less sticky when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. Realizing this, Sinclair Lewis in “Elmer Gantry” used the ploy of “infant damnation” in an attempt to hold the feet of fundamentalists to the fire on this point, though because of his animus Lewis came off rather clumsy in this attempt.

One of the reasons I don’t believe there can be any “theory of everything” in physics is because unless we know exactly and precisely what life and death are such an understanding of everything is not possible. Life and death remain the greatest mysteries they have always been, but when people talk about the soul they are talking about life and death, they are talking about what the very essence of life really is, and to “sell one’s soul” is the common phrase used for describing what people consider to be that part of life of real value. People engage in various descriptions of their concept of the soul, but it generally revolves around a belief that we humans do in fact have a soul, and few throughout history have confused this idea of having a soul with any other living creatures. Spirits yes; souls, no.

So, I began to ask myself whether all life can best be described as the Parable of the Sower. Some of the seed was trodden down and lost to birds; some fell on rocks and withered; some fell among thorns and were choked out, but some fell on good ground and grew as hoped.

Henry Thoreau must have had the parable in mind when he commented on Nature’s profligacy concerning life, how much of life is wasted, given to death and decay. But “heathen” as he proclaimed himself, he hazarded the hope that life is eternal, that the blade of grass might give up the ghost but only die down to its root; and from this root spring back to life once again.

But as Henry together with all farmers knew there was quite a process to agriculture, that the proper cultivation of the soil, the proper sowing of seed, the need of moisture and keeping weeds at bay are all essential to expectations of a harvest. Without these things in their proper order, a harvest is not possible. However, farmers also know there is such a thing as “bad seed.” I have come to think about the possibility of such bad seed among human beings.

Nature is profligate about seeds, casting thousands of seeds expecting the majority to die, but casting the thousands so some might survive. Nature, unlike human beings, is very pragmatic. But farmers must be equally pragmatic, knowing not all seeds have the “germ of life” in them and making every attempt to plant only good seed, that which has this germ of life.

The bad seed cannot “grow a soul,” the farmer must have seed with a soul if he is to plant in hope. I cannot consider the hundreds of millions throughout the world born to nothing but suffering and dying and not view this in the way Nature handles the casting of those thousands of seeds knowing most will die to no purpose, in a sense these are seeds without a soul. But in saying this, I am also saying only that seed, the good seed of the parable, has a soul; in short, an “age of accountability” that grows a soul that just may apply to human beings.

Many versions of the idea of an age of accountability before the soul forms have been advanced by many cultures throughout human history. Some systems like reincarnation attract many believers. Others like the various forms of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam struggle with attempts to define their terms. Since it is all speculation what really matters to me is what I believe, but this isn’t easy to pin down in many cases; and questions surrounding the soul is one of these cases.

But recalling that line by John Wayne in “The Shootist,” it may very well be that our souls are what we make of them. The question then remains at what point in life are such decisions regarding our souls being made? This is the crux of the Proverb “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.” However, one must first grow to that point of being able to discern the affairs of the heart in order to be able to keep it with all diligence. And here we are back to the original confusing elements of these things; the body, soul, spirit, and mind. So, when anyone attempts to define the soul and separate this from the other elements of human beings they have their work cut out for them, especially when your lover declares they are yours, “heart, mind, and soul.”

As Jesus pointed out and all farmers know, not even all good seed is equal. Some seeds bear more plentifully than others, but the fruit remains good since it is born of good seed. And a tree remains known of its fruit, or as “The Shadow” had it: “The weed of crime bears bitter fruit,” another way of saying there is good seed and there is bad seed. There may be good souls and bad souls, or, there may be some without a soul, some who never grow a soul.

Did you ever look into the eyes of someone and pronounce them “soulless?” I have, on several occasions. Such a thing may have a far deeper meaning than many are willing to credit, but I don’t doubt it is one of the things the Pope’s theologians had to consider and was sufficient reason for them to draw back from attempting to answer the question of Limbo definitively.