Question about creation of our soul

[grannymh]

Reference :

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. The questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst the oldest and most important questions in philosophy and science. These questions have particularly important implications in ethics, politics, and theology. This is partly because human nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life. The complex implications of such questions are also dealt with in art and literature, while the multiple branches of the humanities together form an important domain of inquiry into human nature and into the question of what it is to be human.

This is one of the ways to look at human nature.

Another way to look at human nature is to look at the essential elements which are required in order to separate a human person from the verses leading to Genesis 1: 25.

Human nature is material decomposing anatomy and a non-decomposing
spiritual soul united in a miraculous way which only the Creator God can do. (Genesis 1: 27; CCC 362-365)

We do not have to choose between the two ways of looking at human nature.

 

[grannymh]

I follow what you are saying about one human nature (matter and soul together) yet we are told when the body (matter) dies, the soul continues to live, it’ll never perish I think? So this implies that at some point body and soul can become separate for a time.

The only point at which a true human’s body and soul can be separate is human death.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, I’m not thinking on what effects are due to the human regarding Original sin, I’m pondering how the will of a human affected the soul of another human.
It is God’s will that we be born, not the will of a human.
I know the church says it’s a mystery we can not fully understand, much like the vast universe is a mystery, yet it is something that is so important to understand in order to reach a level of understanding about God, and humans beings (mostly human beings with their vast differences in thoughts and deeds, God I believe can not be fully known in this life)

When something looks like a mystery in the Old Testament, we immediately look for the clarification in the New Testament – For example, Romans 5: 12-21 and
1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

 

[Richca]

Thanks, I’m not thinking on what effects are due to the human regarding Original sin, I’m pondering how the will

of a human affected the soul of another human.
It is God’s will that we be born, not the will of a human.

Well, it takes the free wills of a man and woman in cooperation with God’s will for the procreation of human beings.

Adam’s will affects the souls of his progeny because by his will and disobedience to God’s command in the garden of Eden he forfeited the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice he would have passed on down to his descendants. So that now we his children are conceived and born into the world without the original gift of holiness and justice on our souls. God immediately creates the soul of every human being but without the gift of original holiness and justice which he originally intended to be passed on down to Adam and Eve’s children on condition that they keep his command in the garden of Eden. The gift of original holiness and justice was a part of the ‘whole’ human nature if you will in God’s plan to be transmitted to our first parents’ children. Adam and Eve lost the gift and transmit to us a human nature shorn of that gift. We derive our human nature from Adam and Eve, we are their descendants. They cannot transmit to us what they lost, i.e, the gift of original holiness and justice. They cannot transmit what they don’t have to transmit.

The reverse side of the fall of Adam and Eve is the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ for us. By the obedience of the will of Jesus to the will of the Father, Jesus brought about our redemption through his passion, crucifixtion and death. We participate in Jesus’ merits and what he won for us through the sacraments of the Church. Just as by one man’s disobedience death and condemnation came to all, so by one man’s obedience life and acquittal come to all (St Paul, Romans).

 

[Ion]

I see it like there is a feedback from the body to soul. God gives us a perfect soul but as it gets into the body it is “tricked” by the body into ignoring/loosing/maybe even somehow rejecting some graces. Somehow it makes the soul to act differently than it would into a holy body.

 

[grannymh]

I see it like there is a feedback from the body to soul. God gives us a perfect soul but as it gets into the body it is “tricked” by the body into ignoring/loosing/maybe even somehow rejecting some graces. Somehow it makes the soul to act differently than it would into a holy body.

Please accept my sincere apology.

In a Philosophy Forum, what is being described would be considered an example of Cartesian extreme dualism. This is not part of Catholic teachings.

Early on CAF, I was nailed for my personal sample of Cartesian dualism. A sample which I had not seen as relating to Rene Descartes’s deeper meanings. Once I had human nature in a better position, my own spirituality appeared to be better.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

First of all, great question!

Thanks, I’m not thinking on what effects are due to the human regarding Original sin, I’m pondering how the will of a human affected the soul of another human.
It is God’s will that we be born, not the will of a human.
I know the church says it’s a mystery we can not fully understand, much like the vast universe is a mystery, yet it is something that is so important to understand in order to reach a level of understanding about God, and humans beings (mostly human beings with their vast differences in thoughts and deeds, God I believe can not be fully known in this life)

I think much of what has been said on this thread, Granny especially, tends away from the idea of separation of body and soul. Both are gifts from God, directly from God, and both can be addressed simultaneously.

I see what you mean, though, about even though it is “mystery”, it is important to reach a level of understanding about God! There is an understanding that is accessible, and it is in my signature. God’s love and mercy is without bound. If something in scripture and doctrine seems to conflict with this unlimited Love and Mercy, it is a mystery, but cannot be allowed to take away from the fact about God’s infinite benevolence.

So, we can simply say “original sin does not make sense” and leave it at that, or we can work on the definition of os until it can make sense in light of what we know about God.

Thanks

Not sure I’ve read in Genesis fall anywhere God speaks about Adam and Eve’s children’s souls lacking sanctifying grace. Desire for husband and he lording over her and pain in childbirth, hard work for Adam…

The new creature, being baptised etc all good.

Yet how you have put the above together made me think, it sounds as though it is God in fact that does withhold Grace, and nothing really to do with the actions of the first humans. We know God as creator can do what he wishes with a soul, he could have ‘punished’ A&E alone for their disobedience and allowed souls born of them to make their own choice for obeying/disobeying. In a way we do get to choose, baptised as a child doesn’t always stop one from disobeying. Same with Adam and Eve, given the gifts they had, they still disobeyed.

In its original context in the Gospel, baptism is a move toward repentance. When the sacrament itself does not involve a move toward repentance, as with the baptism of babies, it diverges from the original meaning. Now that we baptize infants, we have to take all the sacraments of initiation (baptism, 1st communion, confirmation) as essentially a single act, and the final part of the act, confirmation, is what manifests baptism in the way that it occurred in the Gospel.

In confirmation, the individual herself steps forward, repents, and commits herself to following Christ. While this commitment does not in itself eliminate the possibility of error, it does set us in the right direction, so the commitment itself is salvific.

God withholding grace? Does that contradict His infinite mercy and love? If it does, it can be put into the “mystery” category, or some further explaining is in order. Maybe it only seems to people that He withholds grace, and/or the idea that God withholds grace motivates people toward repentance. In that sense, the image (in itself) of God that involves God withholding grace can be salvific, even if God never withholds grace. Indeed, the theology of God withholding grace, when it motivates repentance, is in itself a grace!

Alongside that grace, if the image of God is one for which God’s love and mercy is without limit and He never withholds grace, and as such this the image inspires people to in turn love and be merciful to others without limit, then this image, too, is a grace.

Does that make sense, or is it confusing?

Blessings!

 

[simpleas]

This is one of the ways to look at human nature.

Another way to look at human nature is to look at the essential elements which are required in order to separate a human person from the verses leading to Genesis 1: 25.

Human nature is material decomposing anatomy and a non-decomposing
spiritual soul united in a miraculous way which only the Creator God can do. (Genesis 1: 27; CCC 362-365)

We do not have to choose between the two ways of looking at human nature.

I don’t think I am trying to look at human nature in two ways, I’m looking at the soul of one, who can affect the soul of another.

 

[simpleas]

The only point at which a true human’s body and soul can be separate is human death.

Agreed.

That ‘some point’ meant at death, I didn’t word that correctly.

 

[simpleas]

Well, it takes the free wills of a man and woman in cooperation with God’s will for the procreation of human beings.

 

[simpleas]

I see it like there is a feedback from the body to soul. God gives us a perfect soul but as it gets into the body it is “tricked” by the body into ignoring/loosing/maybe even somehow rejecting some graces. Somehow it makes the soul to act differently than it would into a holy body.

Not sure about that, I do see that the soul and body are one. Your comment about a perfect soul, I know when a child is born we most often will admire the child and comment on how perfect that new being is. We’re often told we are perfect in God’s eyes, just as we are.
The soul does animate the body, but I wouldn’t say the body tricks the soul.
I would say it’s the soul that may have to become holy, and then the body follows.

 

[grannymh]

It is the state of being without indwelling union with God that we inherit from our parents, it is not their will necessarily that this be so, yet it is the result of the original movement of Adam and Eve to be alive and like God without God. God creates a soul that is like the parents’ souls and the parents generate a body that is like the parents’ bodies. And then you have a person that is “in the world and of the world”.

I need to be off CAF for a bit.

However, I spotted a term which on the surface is new to me – State of Being – followed by “without indwelling union with God…” In Catholicism, there are different States – State of Sanctifying Grace, State of Mortal Sin, Adam’s State of Original Holiness, State of Original Sin (CCC 404)

State of Being has me wondering. Is that similar to one’s human nature? Human nature does not change. It can be wounded; but, it has never been totally corrupted. (CCC 405) My first reaction is that one’s State of Being can change according to intellective free choices.

Thank you for your future response.

 

[John_Martin]

I need to be off CAF for a bit.

However, I spotted a term which on the surface is new to me – State of Being – followed by “without indwelling union with God…” In Catholicism, there are different States – State of Sanctifying Grace, State of Mortal Sin, Adam’s State of Original Holiness, State of Original Sin (CCC 404)

State of Being has me wondering. Is that similar to one’s human nature? Human nature does not change. It can be wounded; but, it has never been totally corrupted. (CCC 405) My first reaction is that one’s State of Being can change according to intellective free choices.

Thank you for your future response.

Not “State of Being”, but "the state, the condition, of being without indwelling union with God " and we inherit this being without the indwelling union with God from our parents,
When baptized we are now in the condition of living with the indwelling union with God, which means we are in a state of Sanctifying Grace…
The “state of being without the indwelling union with God” is equivalent to saying “the state of original sin” - it is identical, a way of rephrasing it to make sense to me.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

First of all, great question!

I think much of what has been said on this thread, Granny especially, tends away from the idea of separation of body and soul. Both are gifts from God, directly from God, and both can be addressed simultaneously.

I see what you mean, though, about even though it is “mystery”, it is important to reach a level of understanding about God! There is an understanding that is accessible, and it is in my signature. God’s love and mercy is without bound. If something in scripture and doctrine seems to conflict with this unlimited Love and Mercy, it is a mystery, but cannot be allowed to take away from the fact about God’s infinite benevolence.

So, we can simply say “original sin does not make sense” and leave it at that, or we can work on the definition of os until it can make sense in light of what we know about God.

In its original context in the Gospel, baptism is a move toward repentance. When the sacrament itself does not involve a move toward repentance, as with the baptism of babies, it diverges from the original meaning. Now that we baptize infants, we have to take all the sacraments of initiation (baptism, 1st communion, confirmation) as essentially a single act, and the final part of the act, confirmation, is what manifests baptism in the way that it occurred in the Gospel.

In confirmation, the individual herself steps forward, repents, and commits herself to following Christ. While this commitment does not in itself eliminate the possibility of error, it does set us in the right direction, so the commitment itself is salvific.

God withholding grace? Does that contradict His infinite mercy and love? If it does, it can be put into the “mystery” category, or some further explaining is in order. Maybe it only seems to people that He withholds grace, and/or the idea that God withholds grace motivates people toward repentance. In that sense, the image (in itself) of God that involves God withholding grace can be salvific, even if God never withholds grace. Indeed, the theology of God withholding grace, when it motivates repentance, is in itself a grace!

Alongside that grace, if the image of God is one for which God’s love and mercy is without limit and He never withholds grace, and as such this the image inspires people to in turn love and be merciful to others without limit, then this image, too, is a grace.

Does that make sense, or is it confusing?

Blessings!

Thanks

Your signature makes God sound too nice!

From what most posters on CAF will say, God does withhold, he creates a new being but without the Original holiness and Justice, which would be true, else we’d all be immortal and wouldn’t even be having this conversation…

God from what it seems does not withhold grace, just the original gifts. If one believes that man was intended to live forever as a perfected human being in a perfect universe other than the one we are discovering, giving praise to God alone, then I do find this difficult to grasp.

The seasons change, everything dies, and new life is created. We accept this, probably because there is no other way it can be, but was it really different in the beginning?

I know what you mean about the various ways people can relate to receiving grace from God, what prompts people into repentance etc.

This thread was to be more about the creation of our being (I’ll say that instead of soul) being meaning body and soul together as one from God, not man, even though that sounds incorrect because we give birth to each other as humans, it still would not be possible unless we had first been created. And each person, whoever they are, are willed into being by God.

I don’t want to keep repeating myself,so to drive everyone mad! I do appreciate all posts as I ponder my own questions.

Cheers.

 

[goout]

Thanks, I’m not thinking on what effects are due to the human regarding Original sin, I’m pondering how the will of a human affected the soul of another human.
…

God created us in a state of perfect unity. We are united with God, and through God to all others. We are not isolated individuals.

953 Communion in charity. In the sanctorum communio, "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself."489 "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."490 "Charity does not insist on its own way."491 In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion.

 

[John_Martin]

This thread was to be more about the creation of our being (I’ll say that instead of soul) being meaning body and soul together as one from God, not man, even though that sounds incorrect because we give birth to each other as humans, it still would not be possible unless we had first been created. And each person, whoever they are, are willed into being by God.

I don’t want to keep repeating myself,so to drive everyone mad! I do appreciate all posts as I ponder my own questions.

Cheers.

Being
“I am”. My body is not “I am”, but it is my body. “I am”. My soul is not “I am”, but it is my soul.
The LORD gave his word to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
It is as if saying, “Before I formed your body to be animated with your soul in the womb I knew you, and before you were born in your soul and body I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

The parents give the genetics,
God gives a soul,
but then with the two united he "knows the living ‘you’ ". and you become “I am”,
you become a “being”,
and “having” a body and soul as your “place of being”.
What God “knows” has being;
what God “knows” - that known thing IS, has being - you ARE in that your are KNOWN, and you say, “I am” - in a similar way to God saying “I AM”.

 

[Richca]

You see what makes me question, and I am sure I will not find the one, correct, 100% final answer in this life, is that reading that God creates a soul without the gift of original holiness and justice, but that it can be restored (although not the same) at baptism. Also, I know the teaching is that A&E lost the gifts, and so they could not pass on an immortal nature, but I don’t know how they could have because they didn’t have the ability to pass on a soul,only matter.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Thanks

Your signature makes God sound too nice!

Does He/She sound at least as nice as the person who loves you most? That’s a good start!

From what most posters on CAF will say, God does withhold, he creates a new being but without the Original holiness and Justice, which would be true, else we’d all be immortal and wouldn’t even be having this conversation…

Okay, you win on that one, somewhat. What about the idea that we are still being created for the very end you are talking about? Then, we don’t have to think that God withholds, but only works in what we think as a very slow manner.

God from what it seems does not withhold grace, just the original gifts. If one believes that man was intended to live forever as a perfected human being in a perfect universe other than the one we are discovering, giving praise to God alone, then I do find this difficult to grasp.

He’s “workin’ on it”, maybe, no?

The seasons change, everything dies, and new life is created. We accept this, probably because there is no other way it can be, but was it really different in the beginning?

We only think that the beginning was different if we take the creation story literally. Otherwise, the trend is for people to become closer to God. That’s what I see. We can see God’s mercy, love, and forgiveness as unchanging, constant, pervasive, not dependent on human behavior.

I know what you mean about the various ways people can relate to receiving grace from God, what prompts people into repentance etc.

This thread was to be more about the creation of our being (I’ll say that instead of soul) being meaning body and soul together as one from God, not man, even though that sounds incorrect because we give birth to each other as humans, it still would not be possible unless we had first been created. And each person, whoever they are, are willed into being by God.

Cheers.

It is a puzzling thing, isn’t it? God wills people into being that he already knows will do all the terrible things they will do and suffer. It would be easy to fall into believing that God does not exist or that God is not merciful. This is why I think that acts of mercy, self-awareness, and prayer tell us much more about who God is (in terms of Love) than any doctrine. Knowing comes from doing.

And it is timely to mention that this is a dilemma that Mother Theresa was faced with. The woman was obviously gifted with an intimate “felt” experience of God, but the gift seemed to suddenly disappear when she was 2 years into the ministry in the slums. She was in despair of the loss, but she remained in her love for Jesus and in her transmission of His love to others. Her experience of God became more “limited”, in a way, that she could only experience His love from other people. There is no doubt in my mind that this change added to her zeal to serve and therefore added to her knowing of God.

It is this kind of “knowing” that allows one to look at the “mysteries” and know that the answers still come from the workings of a benevolent Abba. We don’t understand everything, but we can know that there is an answer that involves our “too nice” God.

 

[o_mlly]

…

How do we get our own individual souls from our God, but say that are in some way affected by the sin of the first parents?

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Tis a mystery.

Ensoulment, God’s action, occurs simultaneously at the moment of physical conception, man’s action.

Under the principle of sufficient reason, colloquially expressed as – one cannot give what one does not possess – Adam, as pro-creator, could give only his partially corrupted human nature to his offspring.

 

[OneSheep]

Tis a mystery.

Ensoulment, God’s action, occurs simultaneously at the moment of physical conception, man’s action.

Under the principle of sufficient reason, colloquially expressed as – one cannot give what one does not possess – Adam, as pro-creator, could give only his partially corrupted human nature to his offspring.

Hello o milly,

There are more unanswered questions, then, for Simpleas’ question:

While there is biological evidence for individuals actually capable of modifying the genotype passed onto the next generation, (at this point only known through chemical/biochemical influences) we have no evidence that the net effect of such modifications can be described as a “corruption”. The contrary is evident, as according to the fossil record humans appear to be developing in a way such that we are less prone to violent behavior and more compelled to be cooperative with one another.

1. Does “corruption” refer to the more rare compromising of natural capacity to thrive?
2. If there is a “corruption”, what is it, specifically, in terms of detail?
3. Do we count these rare “corruptions” as coming from man, while counting more positive developments as coming from God?

And then, there are the theological questions:

1. Why would a benevolent creator give His creation the ability to inadvertently corrupt (either as a net effect) its offspring?
2. Since humans are created in His image, does God have the ability to inadvertently corrupt Himself?

These are the types of problems we encounter with literal interpretations of Genesis. There are also much more problematic theological questions, concerning His benevolence, in the literal reading of the creation story (specifically the part about Adam and Eve). The creation story has a purpose, but ultimately any use of the story to say something about our actual nature runs into a multitude of problematic questions. Instead, the story stands as a means of explaining human nature to humans in a way that empowers people; the story frames our fate in a way that prevents us from blaming God for our negative experiences.

Do you see what I mean?

Please know that I greatly value your responses, whatever they may be!