S
STT
Guest
What is the right definition of immortal?No, that’s is most definitely not what it means. Like I pointed out before, your definition of immortal is mistaken.
What is the right definition of immortal?No, that’s is most definitely not what it means. Like I pointed out before, your definition of immortal is mistaken.
Something which is naturally uncorruptible is immortal.As i already pointed out, it means not naturally corruptible. It doesn’t mean ‘not sustained’
I didnt say so.Show me a quote from Aquinas where he says that immortal means unsustained.
That doesn’t resolve the problem. There are two problems in here: 1) God either hold the rational soul directly or inderectly. At the end He is the sustainer and therefore the rational soul is not immortal. 2) What does holding rational soul through holding natural laws ever mean? Do you mean that the soul’s act is coverned by any system of laws?By the natural laws God gives the soul it is not dissoluble. If God suspends the natural laws, sure.
But this isn’t a new point, STT. Every theologian knows what you’re saying.
I am saying that his arument on immortality of the rational soul which is based on immateriality of the soul does not have any relevance if he accept that everything is sustained by God. In simple word, anything as far as God holds it, exists.So you say that you disapproved Aquinas immortality of the soul, yet you admit that Aquinas never said that an immortal soul is unsustained, which is the crux of your argument?
And what is his definition?Well, if you are attempting to disprove Aquinas’ immortality of the soul, you’d have to use his definition. Otherwise you’d be equivocating and your argument would be a strawman.
Actually, bodies nature also doesn’t change yet the body decays.His definition would be that an immortal souls nature is not to be corrupted, unlike the body.
What do you mean with body dies? What do you mean with the soul doesnt die?The body ages and dies. The soul does not.
No he does not. We do not know anything about the souls of animals, it is not defined, so this is an argument that cannot be used.He does. He does it with animal soul.
I am eternal, I will live eternally, at present, I am in the earth life stage, when I die, I will by the grace of God, be either in Purgatory or Heaven.So you are mortal but God sustain you?
What do you mean? Bodies are constantly changing in nature.Actually, bodies nature also doesn’t change yet the body decays.
That’s a good question. I’d say ‘death’ would be to lose it’s nature. That’s why Adam ‘died’ after the fall - he lost his unfallen nature. I can’t really look it up right now, but maybe someone else has a more rigorous definition?What do you mean with body dies? What do you mean with the soul doesnt die?
Could we please only stick to two words, mortal and immortal (immortal means that it doesn’t die (such as God) under any circumstances, opposite to mortal which means that it dies (the rational soul for example, if God doesnt sustain it))?Shouldn’t we distinguish between immortal meaning incorruptible and everlasting meaning lasts forever. Incorruptible not necessarily meaning everlasting. Everlasting meaning God is incapable, due to his nature or due to the nature of souls he created, of destroying saved souls. Perhaps it would be a contradicton to do so similar to whether God can create something so heavy he can’t lift it, and thus wouldn’t violate the a God being all powerful attribute. Just speculation.
Animals according to Aquinas doesn’t have rational soul so they are mortal. Of course God can sustain anything such as animal soul after their death. I ,however, dont understand what is the point of Aquinas about the rational soul and its immortality.No he does not. We do not know anything about the souls of animals, it is not defined, so this is an argument that cannot be used.
So you are mortal, I mean your soul would perish if God doesnt sustain it? I know that God will keep you alive for eternity.I am eternal, I will live eternally, at present, I am in the earth life stage, when I die, I will by the grace of God, be either in Purgatory or Heaven.
God sustains everyone and everything, even this moment in which you are reading what I am writing in reply.
Any change in the body is according to natural laws. That include mutation and decaying.What do you mean? Bodies are constantly changing in nature.
I will be waiting too.That’s a good question. I’d say ‘death’ would be to lose it’s nature. That’s why Adam ‘died’ after the fall - he lost his unfallen nature. I can’t really look it up right now, but maybe someone else has a more rigorous definition?
Aquinas is a great saint, one that people spend a very long time studying. He was wrong about some things. The Church has not defined animal souls. Any saint can expound on his or her personal view. As long as there is nothing contrary to the Church, that person will be canonised. If Aquinas had said something contrary, he would not be a saint.Animals according to Aquinas doesn’t have rational soul so they are mortal. Of course God can sustain anything such as animal soul after their death. I ,however, dont understand what is the point of Aquinas about the rational soul and its immortality.
My entire being would perish, as would yours, if God did not sustain it. God will keep you alive for eternity also. God loves us and has promised this. This entire world would perish if God stopped sustaining it.So you are mortal, I mean your soul would perish if God doesnt sustain it? I know that God will keep you alive for eternity.
I am wondering that what point he was trying to make. If the rational soul is immortal because it is immaterial then obviously doesnt perish under any circumstances. Saying that the rational soul also do need a sustainer then does make any sense to me since it means that the rational soul is mortal.Aquinas is a great saint, one that people spend a very long time studying. He was wrong about some things.
I don’t think so. I am making an important point. What is the point of Aquinas about the rational soul being immaterial?I think your argument is circular.
God sustains material parts in existence even as he allows them, as composites, to be dissoluble. God gives these things there own causality. They are not mere occurrences.SPBlitz:
I am saying that his arument on immortality of the rational soul which is based on immateriality of the soul does not have any relevance if he accept that everything is sustained by God. In simple word, anything as far as God holds it, exists.So you say that you disapproved Aquinas immortality of the soul, yet you admit that Aquinas never said that an immortal soul is unsustained, which is the crux of your argument?