Do we have immortal souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cadellin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cadellin

Guest
I spoke with my parish priest briefly about our souls. I asked about our souls leaving our bodies when we die. He said that the soul isn’t immortal; when we die the soul ceases to exist. On the Last Day, the day of the resurrection, we will be made a new person by God. Can anyone explain what he means?

He seems to be in accord with Church teaching that we live, die and then rise again on the Last Day. What worries me about his views, or my understanding of the whole matter, is what happens between the day we die and the Last Day. If nothing happens between these two days then where does that leave the Church’s doctrine on the Communion of Saints and on Purgatory? These points didn’t come to me until after I had gone home, so I didn’t have a chance to raise them with him. Before I do go back to him I’d like to be sure of what the Church teaches on the matter of the soul exactly.
 
Either Father is mistaken or you misheard him. We indeed have immortal souls. The Catechism is full of references to it: immortal soul.
 
My understanding is that when we die, we are judged immediately and sent to straight to Heaven, or to purgatory for purification in order to enter Heaven, or to Hell.

The final judgment is a separate thing and I don’t have enough knowledge to discuss it at length. I understand, though, that all souls will be present and our good and evil deeds apparent to all.

And yes, I believe we have immortal souls.
 
Thank-you, Della. Those Catechism quotes are pretty unambiguous.
 
Further, the idea that we don’t have an immortal soul is just bad philosophy. According to Aristotle and Aquinas the soul is what is called a “created necessary being” and thus once it enters into existence then it cannot cease to exist through any ordinary means. For the soul to cease to exist would mean a total annihilation of it by God – this is a radical position. It is radical for a number of reasons but one major problem is that if the soul is annihilated then there is no ‘you’ anymore to be resurrected. This is a gross over-simplification but I think it gets at the gist of things.
 
Do you hear yourself - instead of quoting God’s word you quote Greek philosophy and theology that have influenced the Jewish and Christian teachings. Jesus taught us that death is like a deep sleep. He said that before waking the young girl and Lazarus. Did anyone who was resurrected in the Bible tell about the beautiful place they were at while dead. Was it really fair to resurrect people and bring them back to live on the earth again to re-experience the pain and suffering of dying again?
The human body was created by God blowing into the nostrils of Adam the “breath of life” not a soul. Why would Adam and Eve need a soul since they were created to live for ever? We know this because Eve knew that death was a penalty not a part of life. Think about it.
 
macreadys said:
Do you hear yourself - instead of quoting God’s word you quote Greek philosophy and theology that have influenced the Jewish and Christian teachings. Jesus taught us that death is like a deep sleep. He said that before waking the young girl and Lazarus. Did anyone who was resurrected in the Bible tell about the beautiful place they were at while dead. Was it really fair to resurrect people and bring them back to live on the earth again to re-experience the pain and suffering of dying again?
The human body was created by God blowing into the nostrils of Adam the “breath of life” not a soul. Why would Adam and Eve need a soul since they were created to live for ever? We know this because Eve knew that death was a penalty not a part of life. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Umm, Brother Mosher, some help here?
 
macreadys said:
Do you hear yourself - instead of quoting God’s word you quote Greek philosophy and theology that have influenced the Jewish and Christian teachings. Jesus taught us that death is like a deep sleep. He said that before waking the young girl and Lazarus. Did anyone who was resurrected in the Bible tell about the beautiful place they were at while dead. Was it really fair to resurrect people and bring them back to live on the earth again to re-experience the pain and suffering of dying again?
The human body was created by God blowing into the nostrils of Adam the “breath of life” not a soul. Why would Adam and Eve need a soul since they were created to live for ever? We know this because Eve knew that death was a penalty not a part of life. Think about it.
Click to expand...
This statement demonstrates a serious misunderstanding on the work of The Christ to open Heaven for us with His suffering, death and resurrection.

This statement would imply that the almighty omniscient God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin, which would be impossible. Christ was plan A for humanity from the beginning of creation.
 
Our souls must be immortal because we are made in the image and likeness of God…
 
It is hard to discuss the events recorded in the Bible about the garden and Adam and Eve because the Church views this account as an allegory. (Yes I can prove that) So if we are speaking of a “story” then any possible theologies can be offered. But if the account actually happened as stated in the Bible then we must ask, “did God give man a free will?” In answering this question we must recognize what God would have to do to allow mankind to think for himself and not to be programmed like a robot.
No doubt God posses the power of being all-knowing. But can He choose not to use it in order to allow humans to decide for themselves to worship Him. God does not force anyone to worship him or obey His commandments and laws. Not even the nation of Israel obeyed. Does that mean they were doomed from the start? Even Jesus had a choice to obey his father while on earth - why else would Satan tempt Him to do an act of worship to him.
If a parent knows what his child will do in a certain situation because he knows the make up and character of the child, does that alone dictate the choices the child will make? No. The child has been raised to know right from wrong but it is ultimately up to the child to listen and obey. Humankind as God’s children also are given the same freedom to choose without God’s power to force a decision. Does God have a choice to use such a power or change his mind on doing something? Yes the Bible shows several accounts when a man turned God’s decision away from what He said He would do.
Every human has the right to choose. They are not predestined to do so otherwise they do not have a right or a gift.
Even though the account states the Eve was aware of the penalty of taking from the tree, she “looked upon the tree as desirous.” Something she never did before. Adam made the choice to disobey God on His own. In doing so Rom. 5:12 says through one man sin entered the world." Just think what would have happened if Adam chose God and not Eve. He would have proven he could remain faithful to God and allow all his offspring to live in a paradise world without the penalty of death. No soul would be needed.
Jesus gave his life as a “ransom”. That means he bought back what Adam lost for mankind. It was necessary for Jesus to die as a sacrifice because he was the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world - Adams sin. Therefore Jesus opened the way for mankind to experience the life Adam lost because this what it means when we say… “Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” God’s will IS being done in heaven. But the conditions we live in now is not God’s will for the earth. DID GOD’S WILL CHANGE?
If so why did he sacrifice his son?
Sorry to rant on like this but certain questions and reasoning must be addressed. Otherwise we can all just believe like robots.
 
By the way. Many of the early church fathers wrote many articles disagreeing with Platonian philosophy. These arguments included the immortal soul and the trinity doctrine formulated by the Athanatian creed. More famous people wrote volumes on these subjects such as Issac Newton and Thomas Jefferson.
(Edited)
 
macreadys said:
By the way. Many of the early church fathers wrote many articles disagreeing with Platonian philosophy. These arguments included the immortal soul and the trinity doctrine formulated by the Athanatian creed. More famous people wrote volumes on these subjects such as Issac Newton and Thomas Jefferson.
Any serious study of ancient history of the Roman empire will clearly show how the “Catholic” (universal) church was in reality a transfer of power from ceasers to popes. Jesus did not “found” the “Catholic Church” and the Bible was not written by Catholics as stated in one reply. Actually the Church locked away all known copies of scripture for over 1,000 years and burned people at the stake who tried to own, read or interpret and translate the Bible. Finally the Latin Vulgate was released. The history is fascinating as well as eye-opening to the first few hundred years of the “church”.So I would truly encourage all to take the time to dig into the archives and well documented history. Believe me you will be surprised.
By the way, Peter was not the first pope. It was Paul who went to Rome to start the early congregations. Peter went to the area of Babylon. Check it out.
Click to expand...
My Dear Sir,

Maybe if you are interested in Catholicism you should check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I cannot attest to the books you are studying but I am aware of this book and the truth it teaches.

May God Bless you.
 
macreadys said:
By the way. Many of the early church fathers wrote many articles disagreeing with Platonian philosophy. These arguments included the immortal soul and the trinity doctrine formulated by the Athanatian creed.
Click to expand...
They did not disagree with the immortal soul. They disagreed that the soul was a stronger force within the body, waiting to be free. And not a single Church Father disputed the trinity.
More famous people wrote volumes on these subjects such as Issac Newton and Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...
So? One was an Arian and the other a Deist. They had an obvious bias to twist history.
Any serious study of ancient history of the Roman empire will clearly show how the “Catholic” (universal) church was in reality a transfer of power from ceasers to popes. Jesus did not “found” the “Catholic Church” and the Bible was not written by Catholics as stated in one reply. Actually the Church locked away all known copies of scripture for over 1,000 years and burned people at the stake who tried to own, read or interpret and translate the Bible. Finally the Latin Vulgate was released. The history is fascinating as well as eye-opening to the first few hundred years of the “church”.So I would truly encourage all to take the time to dig into the archives and well documented history. Believe me you will be surprised.
Click to expand...
The Church did make the Bible. It compiled all the divinely inspired books into it. And what is your source for these other claims?
By the way, Peter was not the first pope. It was Paul who went to Rome to start the early congregations. Peter went to the area of Babylon. Check it out.
Click to expand...
Babylon was Rome’s code name! If you’re using a 1st or 2nd century source, that’s what Babylon means in those!
 
macreadys said:
Do you hear yourself - instead of quoting God’s word you quote Greek philosophy and theology that have influenced the Jewish and Christian teachings. Jesus taught us that death is like a deep sleep. He said that before waking the young girl and Lazarus. Did anyone who was resurrected in the Bible tell about the beautiful place they were at while dead. Was it really fair to resurrect people and bring them back to live on the earth again to re-experience the pain and suffering of dying again?
The human body was created by God blowing into the nostrils of Adam the “breath of life” not a soul. Why would Adam and Eve need a soul since they were created to live for ever? We know this because Eve knew that death was a penalty not a part of life. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to notice that this is the Philosophy section of the BBS not the Theology section?
 
Cadellin said:
I spoke with my parish priest briefly about our souls. I asked about our souls leaving our bodies when we die. He said that the soul isn’t immortal; when we die the soul ceases to exist. On the Last Day, the day of the resurrection, we will be made a new person by God. Can anyone explain what he means?

He seems to be in accord with Church teaching that we live, die and then rise again on the Last Day. What worries me about his views, or my understanding of the whole matter, is what happens between the day we die and the Last Day. If nothing happens between these two days then where does that leave the Church’s doctrine on the Communion of Saints and on Purgatory? These points didn’t come to me until after I had gone home, so I didn’t have a chance to raise them with him. Before I do go back to him I’d like to be sure of what the Church teaches on the matter of the soul exactly.
Click to expand...
Before dealing with that question it is necessary to specify the characteristics and properties of the soul— in other words, to define it.

The dictionary definitions are not adequate. I know of no theological definitions of the soul which do not turn upon other ill-defined religious concepts.

To begin with, what is the soul’s relationship with the human body?
 
greylorn said:
Before dealing with that question it is necessary to specify the characteristics and properties of the soul— in other words, to define it.

The dictionary definitions are not adequate. I know of no theological definitions of the soul which do not turn upon other ill-defined religious concepts.

To begin with, what is the soul’s relationship with the human body?
Click to expand...
Why should we define by “properties and characteristics”? Why aren’t dictionary definitions adequate? What theological definitions are here and what “ill-defined” religious concepts do they turn on?

In short, why should we accept the box you seem to want us to put the soul in? It seems that first you should prove the claims you are making, otherwise there seems to be no reason to agree to your request.

Further, how can one talk about the relationship between the body and soul if we haven’t reached a definition of the soul first. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

The OP wanted to know about the existence of the soul. Duality seems to be an entirely different conversation.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
…
Further, how can one talk about the relationship between the body and soul if we haven’t reached a definition of the soul first. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

The OP wanted to know about the existence of the soul. Duality seems to be an entirely different conversation.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the notion of finding a definition of soul pretty much what I proposed?

I’ll guess that the OP was about the human soul. Humans have bodies. If humans also are purported to have souls, duality comes with the territory,

(Unless you know of a way to buy a section of land in Arizona without getting any rabbits…)
 
mosher said:
Further, the idea that we don’t have an immortal soul is just bad philosophy. According to Aristotle and Aquinas the soul is what is called a “created necessary being” and thus once it enters into existence then it cannot cease to exist through any ordinary means. For the soul to cease to exist would mean a total annihilation of it by God – this is a radical position. It is radical for a number of reasons but one major problem is that if the soul is annihilated then there is no ‘you’ anymore to be resurrected. This is a gross over-simplification but I think it gets at the gist of things.
Click to expand...
Aristotle did not believe in an immortal soul. Aristotle’s soul (psyche) is the life principle, and does not have an existence apart from the body. It’s not the “you-ness” of the person- it’s the actuality of living. This created huge problems when Aristotle was translated into Arabic and the Medieval Islamic Scholastics had to contend with him, Plotinus, and the Qu’ran.
 
smithm29 said:
Aristotle did not believe in an immortal soul. Aristotle’s soul (psyche) is the life principle, and does not have an existence apart from the body. It’s not the “you-ness” of the person- it’s the actuality of living. This created huge problems when Aristotle was translated into Arabic and the Medieval Islamic Scholastics had to contend with him, Plotinus, and the Qu’ran.
Click to expand...
Correction: It would be anachronistic to speak about the “you-ness of the person” for Aristotle. While he has a vague notion of person this term does not reach any importance until the early Medieval [Patristic] era. For Aristotle, such a principle was part of ones nature, i.e., form, i.e., soul. The Christian and Muslim corrective is with the notion of a Spiritual Soul which was outside of Aristotle’s categories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top