Resurrection is a false concept

[utunumsint]

See 154, 155, and 156

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Compendium.htm#154

God bless,
Ut

 

[NovusFidem]

If we’re going to continue with this, I’d like to bring up the fact that man is not only body and soul but also spirit.

In catholic theology man is trichotomic. The body is the material part of man, of course. The soul is that part of man that encompasses his will, self-awaremess, feelings, etc. The spirit is that part which connects to God.

I remember our teacher saying that even animals have souls. For instance, every dog is different and has his own temperment. However, animals do not have spirit. They cannot ever come to know God.

This is never mentioned, so I thought I would.

I didn’t remember where I read about it, but I looked around and found it (or something similar): Do animals have souls like human beings?

I am not sure how trustworthy that page is, but I’ve been relying on it a bit. They differentiate animal and humans souls as narutal and supernatural soul (to put it simply), saying that our souls are spiritual. I am not sure about what is right on this subject so i’ll just leave the link there.

Now, can anyone tell me if this would be a valid analogy for this situation?

Our soul is God’s idea, and our bodies are the material He works with (which He also created, but whatever). When He decides to gather clay and sculpt us, is when we are “created” - body (clay sculpture) and soul (idea of the form) unite.

When we die is like when the sculpture is destroyed. That doesn’t mean we are gone forever, and God can simply gather the clay again (add some water and all that ) and “remake” us. The idea (soul) is, after all, still present in His mind. He doesn’t need to locate the soul, He can just place it back on the body (as in: He doesn’t need to “locate” the idea, He can just sculpt it into the same clay again)

To say our Soul was in His mind “before” we were created isn’t necessarily contradictory with the idea that we are created “body and soul at the same time”, since God is timeless (so, the soul existed in His mind “before” ensoulment makes sense, just as matter “existed” “before” being created - now I’m getting confused).

This is more for my sake, as I want to be sure I am understanding all this. Peter’s analogies (that we are His ideas on a story, specially, was very poetic ) were the ones that made more sense to me, so far.

 

[utunumsint]

I didn’t remember where I read about it, but I looked around and found it (or something similar): Do animals have souls like human beings?

I am not sure how trustworthy that page is, but I’ve been relying on it a bit. They differentiate animal and humans souls as narutal and supernatural soul (to put it simply), saying that our souls are spiritual. I am not sure about what is right on this subject so i’ll just leave the link there.

Every material thing is a composite of form and matter. For example, rocks, minerals, elements, and the like.

Plants, animals, and human beings are also a composite of form, but, for Aristotle and Aquinas, their forms are a living principle that causes them to grow and develop. They called it the soul. In plants this involves taking absorbing nutrients, growing, and reproduction. In Animals this also includes mobility. Human beings include what is in the vegetative and animal souls, but also includes a rational element. They identified this rational aspect as irreducible to material form. It is spiritual because immaterial.

Now, can anyone tell me if this would be a valid analogy for this situation?

Our soul is God’s idea, and our bodies are the material He works with (which He also created, but whatever). When He decides to gather clay and sculpt us, is when we are “created” - body (clay sculpture) and soul (idea of the form) unite.

When Aristotle and Aquinas talk about matter and form they are talking about abstractions. Matter and form in the real world are inseparable (except at death when the human body decomposes into its constitutive elements and loses its human form). They are only separable in our minds. But that ability of ours to know is essentially because we can perceive the universal forms in things. Through our knowing of forms, we can know the essence of things.

Now every real thing is a composite of essence and existence. Nothing that exists includes existence as part of its essence, because then that thing would be subsistent. It would never pass away. Only God has an essence which is his existence. That means there is no potentiality in God. No movement from potential to actuality.

All created beings participate in God who is the source of our existence (esse in latin). God creates common esse and sustains all creation. Everything in creation is a composite of essence and existence. Even angels, although they are not composites of form and matter, they are composites of essence and existence.

When we die is like when the sculpture is destroyed. That doesn’t mean we are gone forever, and God can simply gather the clay again (add some water and all that ) and “remake” us. The idea (soul) is, after all, still present in His mind. He doesn’t need to locate the soul, He can just place it back on the body (as in: He doesn’t need to “locate” the idea, He can just sculpt it into the same clay again)

The human being is a composite of material form, but also of an immaterial form. They are all one form, but there is a part of the human person that is not destroyed when the human body dies. That immaterial aspect of the human soul is maintained in existence by the power of God as is everything else that exists in the universe.

To say our Soul was in His mind “before” we were created isn’t necessarily contradictory with the idea that we are created “body and soul at the same time”, since God is timeless (so, the soul existed in His mind “before” ensoulment makes sense, just as matter “existed” “before” being created - now I’m getting confused).

I think that’s right.

God bless,
Ut

 

[frangiuliano115]

I didn’t remember where I read about it, but I looked around and found it (or something similar): Do animals have souls like human beings?

I am not sure how trustworthy that page is, but I’ve been relying on it a bit. They differentiate animal and humans souls as narutal and supernatural soul (to put it simply), saying that our souls are spiritual. I am not sure about what is right on this subject so i’ll just leave the link there.

Now, can anyone tell me if this would be a valid analogy for this situation?

Our soul is God’s idea, and our bodies are the material He works with (which He also created, but whatever). When He decides to gather clay and sculpt us, is when we are “created” - body (clay sculpture) and soul (idea of the form) unite.

When we die is like when the sculpture is destroyed. That doesn’t mean we are gone forever, and God can simply gather the clay again (add some water and all that ) and “remake” us. The idea (soul) is, after all, still present in His mind. He doesn’t need to locate the soul, He can just place it back on the body (as in: He doesn’t need to “locate” the idea, He can just sculpt it into the same clay again)

To say our Soul was in His mind “before” we were created isn’t necessarily contradictory with the idea that we are created “body and soul at the same time”, since God is timeless (so, the soul existed in His mind “before” ensoulment makes sense, just as matter “existed” “before” being created - now I’m getting confused).

This is more for my sake, as I want to be sure I am understanding all this. Peter’s analogies (that we are His ideas on a story, specially, was very poetic ) were the ones that made more sense to me, so far.

Hello Novus Fidem,

Utunumsint is speaking of Aquinas and seems to understand his concepts well. I’ve read a bit and it’s always seemed to me that A had some difficulty with this body and soul combination. A believed only in the body and soul. He seemed to have some difficulty with the “form” of the soul. I’m not well versed in this and will leave it at this.

As regarding the 3 part nature of man, you could check out:

www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=314045

Sorry. Don’t know how to link the page. I googled “catholic teaching on body, soul and spirit”. If you want to understand it as animals having just a soul and humans having a spiritual soul, I guess it’s okay. In catechism we teach that our spirit (the part of us that is God-conscious) affects our soul (mind, will, emotions). So, yes, let’s leave it at that or we’ll have to start a new thread!

Yes. Peter does come up with great explanations, doesn’t he?

I believe your understanding of God creating our body and soul before they are created is right. God has an idea, which is Peter’s story, and then God carries it through - He writes the book. We are one with our body, but God could have created our soul (which is the real us) in His mind first and then just added the body. OR He could have created them at the same time.

We can’t really know the progression of His idea. Nor should it matter all that much to us. As the soul and spirit idea. As long as we understand that it’s our spirit that connects to God. As long as we know that God gave us our body and soul, at some time.

Jeremiah 1:5 says that God knew us before He formed us in the womb. HOW He knew us is going to have to remain a mystery. I would tend to believe that He knew us as a body and soul together: however, as you point out - it could also be the other way because He is timeless, as you say.

Genesis says He formed the body first. THEN He breathed “life” into man. BTW, the word life in Genesis is plural meaning He breathed lives into the man. Another good understanding for soul and spirit. So I always tend to think in terms of those first cells forming and a soul is already in them. But HOW LONG that sould existed is the mystery.

Fran

 

[Bahman]

Hi Bahman, as to your first point, I still disagree that an embodied soul occupies space. Just because the matter informed by the soul has space it doesn’t follow that the soul has space. An analogy would be the brain thinking of the concept of an isosceles triangle: while the former has location and occupies space, the thought of an isosceles triangle doesn’t.

Knowledge is a set of concepts and it is structured. Anything that is structured occupies space.

As to your second point, I agree that a disembodied soul is not functional, at least not fully. I still don’t think it follows that God could not sustain the soul without matter, much in the same way as God’s thinking about the concept of an isosceles triangle maintains the concept immaterially.

I am afraid that this analogy is not correct.

 

[Bahman]

There have been philosophers since the time of Plato and Aristotle who have thought about and written myriads of books and articles on the relationship of form and matter.

To presume that you could debunk or refute the idea after a simple reading of a Wiki article leaves me speechless, to be honest.

There are numerous brilliant, intellectually astute and rigorous philosophers in every age since Aristotle who have expounded and expanded the basic idea. Perhaps reading some of them with an open mind, not presuming to know what they don’t might help with gaining insight into the matter.

One does’t need to follow the whole literature once s/he grasp the idea.

The reason not "just any soul could inhabit just any body” is because hylomorphic dualism entails that body and soul make up what essentially is one act of being – NOT two distinct substances commingled.

That is exactly the problem. If soul and body combined are one act of being then soul cannot exist without body.

 

[Bahman]

This would be an ontological claim.

It is not. Ontological arguments are about existence.

And yet, you claimed all ontological arguments were false.

Existence is not primary concept so I still believe that all ontological arguments are false.

No, really, where do you stand on this issue? :jrbirdman:

Please read previous comments.

Is a NECESSARY being merely POSSIBLE?
(Think on that a bit.)

A necessary being is consciousness which is possible.

Can bachelors be married?

This is impossible.

 

[You]

…

That is exactly the problem. If soul and body combined are one act of being then soul cannot exist without body.

bahman, if you are talking about the Catholic religion then yes, the soul can.
Please see;

Matthew 17:3
And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Moses and Elias were the souls of Moses and Elias in heaven.

 

[frangiuliano115]

bahman, if you are talking about the Catholic religion then yes, the soul can.
Please see;

Matthew 17:3
And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Moses and Elias were the souls of Moses and Elias in heaven.

Wait a minute. Now I’M gettng confused!!

I don’t believe Mathew 17:3 has anything to do with what Bahman is bringing up.

Moses and Elijah showed up on Mt. Tabor, but they weren’t both in their body. That won’t happen till the resurrection. We’re told that Elijah was taken up body and soul, but not Moses. And yet he was visible.

But we will have the feeling of a “body” even after death. We won’t be a thing, just floating around.

We’re really getting too deep into this and then it all becomes conjecture which get us nowhere.

Fran

 

[Bahman]

This would be what disqualifies you from applying for the position of “God.” You don’t have the faintest clue how God might go about the business of creating things or resurrecting them. Fair enough.

If your statement is true then there is point in trying to philosophies the work of God. So Tomas and all philosophers are wrong.

But when you move from there to make the spectacularly audacious inference that because YOU don’t understand how, therefore God couldn’t, well, let’s just say your argument loses a bit of its flavour.

I think I understand what I am talking about since my claim is supported by an argument.

However, you haven’t shown that conception or resurrection are “logically impossible.”

Please read OP and show where my arguments is wrong.

What you have shown is that when you begin with a logically incomplete and, therefore, incoherent understanding of a perfectly coherent idea such as hylomorphism, then you tie yourself into knots trying to refute it - like a kitten playing with a ball of string theory.

I repeat again if soul and body together are one act of being then soul cannot exist separated from body. Moreover soul as a immaterial entity has no location which means it is not accessible.

 

[Bahman]

Here’s the Christian System of Belief:

We believe in the bible.
We believe it’s God revealing Himself to us.
We believe Jesus was born.
We believe He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
We believe He died for our sin and for our sins.
We believe He was resurrected.
We believe the Apostles, and others, saw Him alive again.
We believe this is what gave them the courage to preach, as He had requested.
We believe that He went to prepare a place for us, as He promised.
We bellieve He never broke a promise.
We believe Jesus!

You have a big challenge Bahman.

Fran

These are a set of claims only. There were many persons in history who thought they are God.

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR NOVUS FIDEM

MY POST NO. 267
I Say:

I believe your understanding of God creating our body and soul before they are created is right.

Huh??

Sometimes even I don’t understand myself!!

I meant - creating the soul before the body.
Just keep reading.

Fran

 

[Bahman]

bahman, if you are talking about the Catholic religion then yes, the soul can.
Please see;

Matthew 17:3
And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Moses and Elias were the souls of Moses and Elias in heaven.

I am afraid that a quote from Bible doesn’t help. You need to provide an argument. So I repeat again: If soul and body combined are one act of being then soul cannot exist without body. Moreover soul as an immaterial entity does not have any location hence it cannot be locate hence resurrection is impossible.

 

[frangiuliano115]

These are a set of claims only. There were many persons in history who thought they are God.

Yes Bahman. And they were crazy.

Do you believe Jesus was crazy?

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I am afraid that a quote from Bible doesn’t help. You need to provide an argument. So I repeat again: If soul and body combined are one act of being then soul cannot exist without body. Moreover soul as an immaterial entity does not have any location hence it cannot be locate hence resurrection is impossible.

I need to interject. Sorry You.

See Bahman, your religious affiliation says:
Wherever it may go.

That kind of means to me that you have an open mind.
But you don’t.
Because you’re not willing to accept anything anybody here says.

So maybe your rel afltn should say: Atheist.
That would be more honest, IMO.

Because all is apparent from your reply to You. See, we christians base EVERYTHING we know and believe on the bible. And YOU say this doesn’t help. We need to provide an argument. A secular argument. Otherwise it’s the famous circular reasoning which atheists just won’t accept.

Problem is Bahman, that spiritual concepts can only be perceived and understood by a spiritual man. Please read 1 Corinthians 2:7 to about 19 or so.

Oops. Sorry. That’s circular reasoning.

It goes on to say that the natural man cannot understand spiritual concepts. This is important and must be understood by atheists.

We’re not here to prove to you how God created bodies, souls or if He created them at the same time, at different times, or one before the other, or the other before the one.

WHO CARES??? The important thing is that they were created and that we’re here.
Jesus was resurrected. i know you have a problem with that too. Again, I apologize for using what I believe for my argument. So, if God was able to locate Jesus’ soul and get Him back together again - I think He’ll be able to do it for all of us who believe in Him. No matter WHERE the soul is - He’ll be able to locate it. I mean, Scotty could do this on Star Trek, I think God could do at least what Scotty (and Spock) could do!

The body and soul are needed at the same time of creation so that the “thing” creted could be a living person (or animal). A robot has no soul. We’re not robots. Now WHEN the soul was created and HOW it was gotten into that body is something we can’t know. No matter what Aquinas says - he had trouble with this too. Because it’s BEYOND what we could understand.

And that, Bahman, is the beauty of christianity:
We believe what is BEYOND understanding!

Fran

 

[You]

I am afraid that a quote from Bible doesn’t help. You need to provide an argument. So I repeat again: If soul and body combined are one act of being then soul cannot exist without body. Moreover soul as an immaterial entity does not have any location hence it cannot be locate hence resurrection is impossible.

You are talking about The Resurrection, that idea came from the bible. It is only the bible that provides evidence for it.
The Resurrection is not a theory founded from physics, accountancy, philosophy or agricultural science. None of these things can help you understand it. It did not originate with them. And philosophy that does not believe in the soul really will not help you understand it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A necessary being is consciousness…

Well, you have used this statement as a catch-all “proof” for much of what you claim. The problem is that you haven’t shown it to be true, you merely keep asserting it as if it is self-evident. It isn’t.

I suspect you are confused about the difference between “necessary for” and “necessary” in itself or a se.

Perhaps consciousness is necessary for knowledge of anything, but that is far from showing that all conscious beings are necessary.

I was born a number of years ago and attained consciousness some time after that. When I go to sleep at night I lose consciousness. I have been rendered unconscious a few times in my life. I assume that when I am unconscious the universe goes on without me because every morning when I wake up I become conscious of the things around me. I assume they persisted in existence when I was asleep and unconscious. I also assume this is the experience of all human beings around me.

Now you want me (and everyone else) to believe that the universe goes out of existence when I lose consciousness - that it is ontologically dependent upon my being conscious of it. Really?

I can’t know that that is what happens and you only assume that it does. That, my friend, is where your argument that consciousness is necessary - in an absolute sense - comes to a screeching halt. No, consciousness (at least not mine nor yours) is not necessary.

Apparently you didn’t think hard enough on the question of whether necessary things are merely possible.

If anything is MERELY possible, it can’t be necessary, now can it?
(Think on this a little more. Perhaps it will penetrate, perhaps not.
Perhaps it will only go where it will go. Wherever that is.)

 

[Bahman]

Yes Bahman. And they were crazy.

Do you believe Jesus was crazy?

Fran

I would say that they were mislead.

 

[Bahman]

I need to interject. Sorry You.

See Bahman, your religious affiliation says:
Wherever it may go.

That kind of means to me that you have an open mind.
But you don’t.
Because you’re not willing to accept anything anybody here says.

Yes, I am open mind toward the anything which is error free, so called truth.

So maybe your rel afltn should say: Atheist.
That would be more honest, IMO.

That is not correct way to explain my approach toward reality.

Because all is apparent from your reply to You. See, we christians base EVERYTHING we know and believe on the bible. And YOU say this doesn’t help. We need to provide an argument. A secular argument. Otherwise it’s the famous circular reasoning which atheists just won’t accept.

Problem is Bahman, that spiritual concepts can only be perceived and understood by a spiritual man. Please read 1 Corinthians 2:7 to about 19 or so.

I am open to spirituality as well.

Oops. Sorry. That’s circular reasoning.

It goes on to say that the natural man cannot understand spiritual concepts. This is important and must be understood by atheists.

We’re not here to prove to you how God created bodies, souls or if He created them at the same time, at different times, or one before the other, or the other before the one.

WHO CARES??? The important thing is that they were created and that we’re here.
Jesus was resurrected. i know you have a problem with that too. Again, I apologize for using what I believe for my argument. So, if God was able to locate Jesus’ soul and get Him back together again - I think He’ll be able to do it for all of us who believe in Him. No matter WHERE the soul is - He’ll be able to locate it. I mean, Scotty could do this on Star Trek, I think God could do at least what Scotty (and Spock) could do!

Well, if you want to believe on something then there are numerous religions to believe, why pick up Christianity?

The body and soul are needed at the same time of creation so that the “thing” creted could be a living person (or animal). A robot has no soul. We’re not robots. Now WHEN the soul was created and HOW it was gotten into that body is something we can’t know. No matter what Aquinas says - he had trouble with this too. Because it’s BEYOND what we could understand.

Then what is the purpose of a philosophy forum?

And that, Bahman, is the beauty of christianity:
We believe what is BEYOND understanding!

Fran

That is something which is called ignorance and it is not beautiful.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I would say that they were mislead.

I’m sorry Bahman. I don’t understand.

Are you saying the others who thought they were God were mislead?

If I think I’m Queen Elizabeth does that mean I’m mislead or that I’m a bit batty?
You think someone could convince me that I’m the Queen?

Also, I keep reading on these posts about the “form” of the soul. Aquinas said the soul must take the form of the body. Now, quite frankly, I don’t really understand all this and am more than happy to leave the philosophical arguments to Peter Plato.

I can say, however, that many concepts from Thomas’ days have changed a bit since we’ve learned more. I brought up the point of the spirit in man. This is understood differently today, in the sense that we understand it as an integral part of man. Aquinas only spoke to the soul and body of man. I must say that, yes, if you take Aquinas’ view that the two are intertwined, then separation can become an issue. Although we must accept that God can do anything.

How about a NDE? How does a person see himself outside his body? The “I” (id?) of a person is indeed a mystery. When you refer to “I”, what is it you’re referring to? Where is this “I”? If we want to give it a location, it has to be in the brain. But it’s not a part of the material part of the brain.

Think of a person with extreme brain damage. Are they still a person? Will God be able to fix that problem upon their death? Do you think they’ll be brain damaged in heaven? I don’t think so. Again, God can do all. This may be too simplistic for you, but it’s the truth.

Are we just a bunch of atoms and neurons and whatever else? Like a rock, for instance. Or are we something more?

And what about this spirit of ours that is in tune with God. What’s that all about?

You see Bahman, it would never end.

And with the Jesus question. Do you believe Jesus is God?

Your answer is important.

Fran