Is eternal suffering pointless?

[Rohzek]

Why? Does God force us to go to Heaven? Might is not right…

How do you explain the words of Jesus?

You’re not exactly clear with your questions, so I will answer to the best of my abilities. God does not force anyone to go to Heaven, which is why the difference between Heaven and Hell is based upon what is in an individual’s heart. What a saint experiences as joy, a reprobate experiences as Hell. It is a matter of perspective so-to-speak.

As for Jesus’ words, I suppose you are speaking about the eternal fire? I’m not sure what particularly referring to, but that might seem to be it. As I said before, those words are intended to only be relative in meaning. It only seems like an eternity, which is another way of saying, “Yeah, Hell is not worth it.”

Also, by the omnipotent part, I meant to say omnipresent.

Thanks for your contribution. Yes, I agree in some ways. To me, a “total separation from God” would mean that particular being would cease to exist. This is precisely what I am arguing here, but it seems the Orthodox have taken another way out?

Is it possible that some people hate God so much, that no amount of exposure to his love and goodness could “get the to come around?” I’d like to think that it isn’t possible, but maybe so?

Well, I think its possible that a person could continue to reject God for as long as they would like. The question then becomes, do I think that such an outcome is likely? Well, I can’t say for sure, but I would like to believe that they do not do so.

 

[paziego]

This seems like a false dilemma to me.

Either we have an intrinsically indestructible soul that not even God has the power to destroy.

Or we’re mindless lumps of matter, indistinguishable from other matter and devoid of meaning.

How about: we are rational animals, created in the image of God (our ability to reason and love), and have a soul which is our essence, but not identical to our existence. God directly sustains both at all times. He could absolutely sustain either or both forever, or destroy either or both, forever.

I think we will be closer to reaching the heart of the issue once we define what the soul actually is.

Is a soul connected to our sensory organs? In what way would it suffer for eternity? Is it the type of “thing” which can suffer?

More importantly, is the soul the same as our conciseness? I don’t think it is, as I don’t cease to have a soul if I fall in a coma, or am lobotomized by a mad scientist. Neither, according to a Catholic, could you say a foetus which does not have a brain or any means of self-knowledge be said not to have a soul. Even a fertilized egg has a soul in Catholic theology.

So if a soul is our essence it is something separate from our conciseness, and also separate from our personality. But it is with our personality that we (allegedly) “choose” to reject God and suffer eternal hell. But how can this be, if a personality is something liable to change? There is no final personality upon which we decide, as there is nothing inherently fixed about the contents of our minds. Even our deepest convictions are open to reassessment in the right conditions. If we did not admit the fallibility of our own knowledge we would be claiming infallibility for ourselves. With that in mind, no human decision is final, nor is it an expression of the soul (which does not do the thinking).

The mind, or conciseness, is something one minute and another the next. It jumps from thought to thought, ever changing. It can only be defined by its activity, which is one of constant motion. It cannot be defined by its content, as none of that is intrinsic to it. What then, is the point in eternally tormenting this formless phenomenon? What is the point in judging it, in fact?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Not all deterrents are morally acceptable. Kim Jong Un executes the family members of suspected dissidents. Saddam Hussein would publicly humiliate, torture, and execute any who opposed him. Is God in their company, by threatening to expose us to endless torment, and sustain us in that torment, if we refuse to love him?

The question is not if we like the idea of hell, but whether it is pointless. And also I think whether it is just. For pointless and just are not the same things. Wanting to kill your enemies may have a point. But is it just? For justice is the point. It is not pointless if it is exercising true justice.

In the middle ages we did not understand psychology as well. But now we know that people have bad habits often because they have been hurt themselves. Part of being able to repent and to receive love means being able to receive healing. If someone can not love God it is because they do not know his love and healing. God has no needs and thus does not need our love. We need to love and be loved by God. Scripture says we love because he first loved us.

It may be in the middle ages hell was seen as more of an external punishment. But now that we understand psychology more it could also be seen as an internal struggle, being a prisoner to one’s own addictions.

The Orthodox see hell as a reaction to God’s presence. Those incapable of receiving God’s love feel it as a kind of torment. Whereas others see hell as a kind of separation. And this separation is seen as a kind of mercy since they could not stand to be in God’s presence. However, since God is omnipresent he is still present there to some degree, but whether they can recognize that at all or not is debatable.

To those who love God, they do not want to be separated from him. To be separated from God is alone enough torment to be considered hell. Thus, I think hell seems even worse to those who love God. Because they can not stand the thought of being separated from him. To those who have already rejected God it is just the next step.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think we will be closer to reaching the heart of the issue once we define what the soul actually is.

Is a soul connected to our sensory organs? In what way would it suffer for eternity? Is it the type of “thing” which can suffer?

More importantly, is the soul the same as our conciseness? I don’t think it is, as I don’t cease to have a soul if I fall in a coma, or am lobotomized by a mad scientist. Neither, according to a Catholic, could you say a foetus which does not have a brain or any means of self-knowledge be said not to have a soul. Even a fertilized egg has a soul in Catholic theology.

So if a soul is our essence it is something separate from our conciseness, and also separate from our personality. But it is with our personality that we (allegedly) “choose” to reject God and suffer eternal hell. But how can this be, if a personality is something liable to change? There is no final personality upon which we decide, as there is nothing inherently fixed about the contents of our minds. Even our deepest convictions are open to reassessment in the right conditions. If we did not admit the fallibility of our own knowledge we would be claiming infallibility for ourselves. With that in mind, no human decision is final, nor is it an expression of the soul (which does not do the thinking).

Yes, sorry my post was unclear. I was trying to state what I see as a false dilemma under-girding tonyrey’s observation. I don’t think it is the case that we either have indestructible souls OR we’re just matter devoid of meaning. I think we have destructible souls, potentially.

Your observation is is key, as well. We, as humans, are always “becoming.” We don’t know what it would be like to just “be.” I wonder if the soul does do the “thinking” in the sense that the soul is the “thinker.” I have no solution to the mind-body problem. Can’t go there in this thread, but it is another difficulty posed for endless, permanent, hell.

 

[Michael19682]

OK, this is an interesting response. If you are right, then you have a point. If we intrinsically exist forever, then hell could be considered unavoidable. There are other problems with hell, but you may have posed a defense against the accusation that it is miraculously prolonged by God.

However, I believe we “share in God’s essence” aka “being” only in a limited way. I believe we are made in the image of God, and that he “breathed life” into us, but that we remain distinct and totally contingent creatures. Only God’s essence is existence. We are finite creatures by design. God can choose to gift us with immortality, but that isn’t the human “default” in my opinion. It seems he intended to give this gift of endless life to Adam and Eve, but had to withdraw it due to the circumstances they created.

If each of us are gifted with endless life just for being human, than what precisely does Jesus claim to offer? Righteousness? But he claimed to offer “eternal life.” Why is he offering something we each already have and can’t possibly lose?

You hint at answers to your own intriguing questions, Pumpkin Cookie, I think. The answer seems to be that because of the very delimitation of God’s essence as given to us in our human unthinking bodies, he doesn’t withdraw the gift, but rejuvenates it continuously restoring its full potential for heaven. To begin, think of a sea sponge that dries out on land. One must continually add water to preserve its life. If we reject the gift of life this doesn’t mean that the gift of life (found in baptism) leaves like the dove released from Noah’s Ark only never to return once it finds land; but rather that our personal Ark is home for the gift to remain forever. If the ship sinks, all goes down within the eternal hull, decks, etc. The ship lives at the bottom of the ocean forever. It’s very dark down there, and cold too. What Jesus offers is like continual shipboard construction, renewal of the decks, the hull, etc. so that we do not ever have to sink into the depths of either temporary or permanent despair. We may help him with the construction and repairs, but it is clear I would bet that (the source of) materials to complete the repairs must be supplied by God if we are truly aboard an Ark floating at sea without land in sight. Jesus is not only that hidden source revealed but the ship carpenter that directs the labors of those who will let him. He is the moral compass as well preventing us from going in circles or hitting rocks, steering us away from storms, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to answer you. I hope you also think figuratively about this one because Jesus used many figures and parables for just that purpose – giving us hope in the eternal nature of Himself, and the need for our vital connection to God the Father?

 

[arte]

Hell is not proportional, and unjust. Based on what frame of reference?

A sound frame of reference is our human justice system in the free World. We award penalties that fit the crime. Surely God can do better than us mere humans. It appears to me that religious dogma relating to punishment in the afterlife is blind and deaf to anything reason has to offer.

 

[Sarcelle]

A sound frame of reference is our human justice system in the free World. We award penalties that fit the crime. Surely God can do better than us mere humans. It appears to me that religious dogma relating to punishment in the afterlife is blind and deaf to anything reason has to offer.

Humans have difficulty imagining reality without the time factor. When we think of eternity, we tend to actually think of serial longevity, which is still part of the temporal domain but never ending. Sort of like a number line in math where the numbers go on and on to infinity.

When we die, we leave time. Our choices now become irrevocably fixed. There is no going back. Time no longer exists. Eternal separation from God means eternal separation from all that is good. There is no yesterday or tomorrow, only today.

 

[tonyrey]

Otherwise we are machines manufactured and operated by mindless molecules…:idea:

The “ghost in the machine” theory has been generally abandoned because it fails to explain how the mind and body interact:

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[fisherman_carl]

A sound frame of reference is our human justice system in the free World. We award penalties that fit the crime. Surely God can do better than us mere humans. It appears to me that religious dogma relating to punishment in the afterlife is blind and deaf to anything reason has to offer.

You say that our human justice system is a sound frame of reference. What do you base this on? If we are just then answer me this. Why do we permit poverty, injustice, abortion, euthanasia? Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why do the innocent get punished while the guilty go free? What is true justice? It seems to me that our human justice is quite flawed.

Yes, God can and does do better. You blame religious dogma on the existence of hell. Yet, it is Jesus who is the source of this revelation. If the doctrine on hell seems harsh it is only because our Lord has taught it. After all who in their right mind wants there to be an eternal hell? I doubt that even God desires such a thing. For it says in Scripture that God desires all to be saved. So he doesn’t want anyone to be in hell.

Yet, if hell does exist it must be out of necessity. For if God does not desire it, but it still exists, then it’s existence must be out of necessity and not out of desire. Thus, hell doesn’t satisfy God’s desire for everyone to be saved.

What is this necessity then? Although God is omnipotent that doesn’t mean he is free to act in a way that is contrary to his own nature. Nor is free to break his own rules of morality for instance. These rules which comes from his own nature, which is perfect goodness.

I submit to you the following hypothesis, that God has chosen to honor our free will. And this means he doesn’t always get what he wants. For he desires our salvation. And has given us the means to that salvation through Christ. But, because not all of us choose the way of salvation and accept the means of our salvation but reject it then not all of us can be saved. The choice is really between good and evil, light and darkness, God’s Kingdom or the devil’s.

There is a spiritual law known as reaping what you sow. The Scripture clearly says we will reap what we sow.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Yes, sorry my post was unclear. I was trying to state what I see as a false dilemma under-girding tonyrey’s observation. I don’t think it is the case that we either have indestructible souls OR we’re just matter devoid of meaning. I think we have destructible souls, potentially.

Your observation is is key, as well. We, as humans, are always “becoming.” We don’t know what it would be like to just “be.” I wonder if the soul does do the “thinking” in the sense that the soul is the “thinker.” I have no solution to the mind-body problem. Can’t go there in this thread, but it is another difficulty posed for endless, permanent, hell.

One Catholic distinction that can help us here is the difference between an animal’s soul and a man’s soul. The soul of a man is called a rational soul. Whereas an animal is instinctive only. As well a human soul is immortal while an animal is not. This comes from Genesis where it says man was created in God’s image. Thus man’s soul is created immortal in the image of his creator who is eternal.

"for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it. "
-Wisdom 2:23-24

Everyone experiences death. So what could the author be talking about, but a spiritual death. Since divine life comes from God.

I submit to you the death Adam and Eve experienced from sinning was a spiritual death, the withdrawal of God’s divine life in them, his grace, symbolized by being kicked out of the garden. For they lived bodily for hundreds of years after. Scripture talks about the second death as the lake of fire. This is a spiritual death, being cut off from God. Not a cessation of existence.

The catechism describes this divine life we experience in Christ as partaking in God’s divine nature. Eternal life is not merely existence without cessation, but it is existence infused with God’s divine life.

 

[arte]

arte,

I am sorry for neglecting to reply. I do not have good internet forum etiquette, and I don’t always understand when I’m supposed to reply. I usually only reply to something when I feel that someone has stated something seriously erroneous or unfounded or outrageous. I agree with you that many people seem to believe God is akin to a “super human maniac.” I think this is bound to happen though, because God’s nature is so totally “other” we can’t fathom it, so we project our mania, obsession, selfishness, or other negative characteristic onto our concept of God. These “gods” we make are not worthy of belief, upon examination. I truly believe we are able to make only negative statements about the real God (i.e) " omnipotent" means “his power has no limitations” or “omniscient” means “there is nothing he doesn’t know.”

I would like to modify my stance somewhat, and this is not a reply to you specifically, but to this and other related threads on this forum:

First, if one is a professing Roman Catholic believer, then one has good reasons to suppose hell exists and that people go there. It is undeniable that the architects and heroes of the faith built this doctrine and proclaimed it unceasingly, without soft-pedaling it or minimizing it. I think, even with all of the argumentation against hell, it could still exist, if the Roman Catholic church truly “speaks with the voice of God.” Though it seems pointless, one could always argue that “only God knows the purpose” or some thing like that. I am not here to proselytize anyone away from the Roman Catholic faith, that is not the point of Catholic Answers. Sometimes I can’t believe they allow me to post the things that I do. It is a testament to their charity and fair-mindedness. 700 years ago, I probably would have been tried and executed, and the things I have written would have been burned or otherwise destroyed! This is a sobering thought. Actually, I would have been too cowardly to voice my dissent, so I would have toed the line for fear of violent punishment. Even more likely I would have been illiterate and would never have written anything. I digress…

I just want to back off a little bit here; I’ve laid out my arguments but they are not meant to proselytize or encourage anyone to become a heretic or apostate.

Readers should know that I have excommunicated myself over and over again due to my beliefs and public statements (though anonymous). I have been “cursed to damnation” (anathema) many times by the Church (as a mystical body) based on my beliefs and public statements. I live a life of utter rank apostasy. I haven’t received any sacraments for quite a long time, and have no sacramental items in my home. I refuse to bow or kneel before any statues, tabernacles, etc. So, it is entirely possible that I am doing Satan’s work. All my arguments could be the product of satanic or demonic influence. I could be aiding him in dragging more souls down to endless hell. I mention this in order to give good Catholics a solid reason to doubt my argumentation. It could all be a trick of the devil, so it is best to be skeptical.

Among the many wonderful attributes of the Catholic Church is the allowance of debate concerning the Catholic faith among its members. We are open to constructive criticism from anyone whether inside or outside our faith. Islam has not allowed any constructive criticism from its members and that is one of the main reasons why the religion and its members are in such a mess. There is a broad cross section of personal belief in the Church members and this makes Catholicism such a vibrant Christian denomination. What I have found over the years is that in spite of this broad cross section of personal belief, our fellow Catholics are wonderful Christians. Some of the Protestant denominations are very severe and whilst not as bad as Islam, they are not as open as Catholicism to constructive criticism. I am a returned Catholic after about 35 years away. I returned to the Church in 2004. The Church has changed for the better since I left. Holy Communion is a wonderful sacrament and we are so fortunate to receive it.

You are not excommunicating yourself and are not doing Satan’s work. I have gone through similar feelings myself. You are merely aligning God with His attributes of love and mercy to the punishment that He decides in the afterlife. A criminal puts himself in prison but his punishment is decided by a judge. God is the judge and eternal damnation is not a fitting punishment for anyone. I have only seen sacramental items in older Catholic’s’ homes. When you pray before a statue, you are not praying to the statue; you are praying to what the statue represents. I do not believe that we should fear God. If a God wants us to fear Him then it is not God. God is love; it’s that simple.

 

[arte]

Humans have difficulty imagining reality without the time factor. When we think of eternity, we tend to actually think of serial longevity, which is still part of the temporal domain but never ending. Sort of like a number line in math where the numbers go on and on to infinity.

When we die, we leave time. Our choices now become irrevocably fixed. There is no going back. Time no longer exists. Eternal separation from God means eternal separation from all that is good. There is no yesterday or tomorrow, only today.

I agree that time no longer exists when we die but our choices are not irrevocably fixed. To say that our choices are irrevocably fixed shows that we do not understand eternity. God has the power over time and eternity. God’s love can alter choices made in a finite universe when we are in an eternal universe. Scientists ponder over how a universe can be created out of nothing. One thought put forward is that the laws of physics in our finite universe do not apply in the “nothing” before the universe is created. Therefore, it is possible that “nothing” can produce “something” because it is not beholding to our laws of physics. In the same way eternity is not beholding to decisions we make in a finite universe.

 

[Rohzek]

The “ghost in the machine” theory has been generally abandoned because it fails to explain how the mind and body interact:

Just a side-note: dualism has not been abandoned. In fact, most people are tacit dualists and many experts on the matter are openly so. And no one has sufficiently explained away the mind-body problem. So there is no imperative to abandon dualism either. Some good articles and books by Colin McGinn and Noam Chomsky suggest that we don’t have the cognitive capacity to solve the mind-body problem. It’s quite interesting actually.

One could argue that we have a more cohesive and intelligible understanding of what the ghost is than we do with the body.

 

[jmcrae]

Relying on the position that hell serves no purpose since we don’t know of any redemption from its darkness, the pain there would be useless. that argument/reality/position is one of the most prevalent criticisms of our religion, and why the “religion” gets rejected, and Christ along with it. a tragedy of false assumption.

The analogy that makes the most sense to me is this one:

The bridge is out. We don’t know why the bridge is out. It’s not fair that the bridge is out; everyone agrees about that - but, it just is.

Pretending that the bridge isn’t really out won’t help.

Going on about how unfair it is also won’t help.

Demanding that the bridge builder fix the bridge on your timeline isn’t going to work in this particular instance - He’s got all of Eternity, and apparently, He’s using all of it.

Imagining that those who ignore the warnings, and who then fall off the edge where the bridge has gone out - imagining that they have miraculously made it safely to the other side, also won’t help.

What helps is, heeding the warning that the bridge is out, passing the warning on to others (especially to your children), and making sure you take the correct detour, so that you can arrive safely where you intend to go.

The bridge is out. Take the detour.

Sin has entered the world. Get right with Jesus.

 

[oldcelt]

The analogy that makes the most sense to me is this one:

The bridge is out. We don’t know why the bridge is out. It’s not fair that the bridge is out; everyone agrees about that - but, it just is.

Pretending that the bridge isn’t really out won’t help.

Going on about how unfair it is also won’t help.

Demanding that the bridge builder fix the bridge on your timeline isn’t going to work in this particular instance - He’s got all of Eternity, and apparently, He’s using all of it.

Imagining that those who ignore the warnings, and who then fall off the edge where the bridge has gone out - imagining that they have miraculously made it safely to the other side, also won’t help.

What helps is, heeding the warning that the bridge is out, passing the warning on to others (especially to your children), and making sure you take the correct detour, so that you can arrive safely where you intend to go.

The bridge is out. Take the detour.

Sin has entered the world. Get right with Jesus.

What about the thought that none of what you have mentioned is not reality? Just a thought.

John

 

[jmcrae]

What about the thought that none of what you have mentioned is not reality? Just a thought.

John

Then be good because it’s good to be good.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The analogy that makes the most sense to me is this one:

The bridge is out. We don’t know why the bridge is out. It’s not fair that the bridge is out; everyone agrees about that - but, it just is.

Pretending that the bridge isn’t really out won’t help.

Going on about how unfair it is also won’t help.

Demanding that the bridge builder fix the bridge on your timeline isn’t going to work in this particular instance - He’s got all of Eternity, and apparently, He’s using all of it.

Imagining that those who ignore the warnings, and who then fall off the edge where the bridge has gone out - imagining that they have miraculously made it safely to the other side, also won’t help.

What helps is, heeding the warning that the bridge is out, passing the warning on to others (especially to your children), and making sure you take the correct detour, so that you can arrive safely where you intend to go.

The bridge is out. Take the detour.

Sin has entered the world. Get right with Jesus.

ha ha! I liked that analogy.

 

[arte]

You say that our human justice system is a sound frame of reference. What do you base this on? If we are just then answer me this. Why do we permit poverty, injustice, abortion, euthanasia? Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why do the innocent get punished while the guilty go free? What is true justice? It seems to me that our human justice is quite flawed.

I am merely comparing criminal justice in a criminal court and nothing else. Of course even that isn’t 100% perfect but the basis is that the judge selects a punishment that fits the crime. The judge doesn’t award capital punishment for stealing a CD from a store.

Yes, God can and does do better. You blame religious dogma on the existence of hell. Yet, it is Jesus who is the source of this revelation. If the doctrine on hell seems harsh it is only because our Lord has taught it. After all who in their right mind wants there to be an eternal hell? I doubt that even God desires such a thing. For it says in Scripture that God desires all to be saved. So he doesn’t want anyone to be in hell.

It’s obvious that God cannot do better than a human judge in a criminal court. I do have great problems with Jesus’ teaching on hell and I often pray to Him about it. I am a Christian Universalist on the subject. **“If the doctrine on hell seems harsh it is only because our Lord has taught it”. ** Therefore, our Lord has less compassion than most of the human race which doesn’t seem correct to me. It is also obvious that God is not in his right mind because any human in his right doesn’t want there to be a hell. If God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, then hell doesn’t exist.

Yet, if hell does exist it must be out of necessity. For if God does not desire it, but it still exists, then it’s existence must be out of necessity and not out of desire. Thus, hell doesn’t satisfy God’s desire for everyone to be saved.

What is this necessity then? Although God is omnipotent that doesn’t mean he is free to act in a way that is contrary to his own nature. Nor is free to break his own rules of morality for instance. These rules which comes from his own nature, which is perfect goodness.

I submit to you the following hypothesis, that God has chosen to honor our free will. And this means he doesn’t always get what he wants. For he desires our salvation. And has given us the means to that salvation through Christ. But, because not all of us choose the way of salvation and accept the means of our salvation but reject it then not all of us can be saved. The choice is really between good and evil, light and darkness, God’s Kingdom or the devil’s.

I believe we get far too hung up over “free will”. The thief who stole a CD from the store has exercised his free will and his punishment on Earth will fit the crime. It will not be capital punishment. Simple answer for God to honour our free will and to get what He wants: Create some form of system that causes the sinner to repent of his sins in the afterlife. If our simple human minds still want punishment for the sinner then send the worst sinners to prison for a thousand years or longer. The choice is really between a God who is an omnipotent being with more love and power than we can imagine and a false God.

There is a spiritual law known as reaping what you sow. The Scripture clearly says we will reap what we sow.

I agree, we will reap what we sow but the Scripture is either wrong or mistranslated if it means eternal punishment of any kind.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Perhaps it is simply that there is no television in Heaven…or perhaps the flames of Hell keep serve as the central heating for the mansions in Heaven…?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The “ghost in the machine” theory has been generally abandoned because it fails to explain how the mind and body interact:

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The catechism likewise fails to explain how the mind (soul) and body interact. I just don’t understand why souls, of necessity, must exist everlastingly. Socrates made a compelling case for the eternal nature of the human soul, but it stands in contradiction to Catholic dogma. Catholics believe that God creates our souls directly and sustains them at every infinitesimally small moment, continuously. This process begins at conception (or somewhat later, it isn’t a settled issue). This is distinct from the Platonic notion that our souls have always existed, are not created, and therefore cannot be destroyed. Socrates argues that it is precisely because we have not been created that we cannot be destroyed. The CCC (and the Torah) teach us that we are created. What can be created can be destroyed, bottom line.