Soul and resurrection?

[Bahman]

I am puzzled with the concepts of soul and resurrection for a while. The problem is as following: Soul is defined as form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. This means that soul is formless after death hence all attributes like, personality, identity, etc are gone upon death meaning that all souls do look similar after death. The act of resurrection is problematic now since all attributes related to a person is gone upon death.

Your thought?

 

[Maddie26]

I am puzzled with the concepts of soul and resurrection for a while. The problem is as following: Soul is defined as form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. This means that soul is formless after death hence all attributes like, personality, identity, etc are gone upon death meaning that all souls do look similar after death. The act of resurrection is problematic now since all attributes related to a person is gone upon death.

Your thought?

I have never heard anything like this before and it sounds very strange and not at all Christian. How can the soul be a form of a body when it exists separate from the body? A body is by definition a physical, material thing, bound by the laws of thermodynamics and enslaved to entropy. The soul is eternal and not a physical thing. Also, just because the soul is no longer attached to the body why would it lose all its distinguishing features? Especially when the soul is marked by what was done when in the body, i.e. sin, baptism etc. How could a soul be judged if it was somehow wiped after death? If anything, the soul is more likely to be distinguished than the body since the soul can only be completely honest and our bodies hide things all the time.

Read the Bible. Read the Catechism. Stop reading whatever it is that you’re reading because it doesn’t make sense either from the point of view of the spiritual life or the principles of physics.

 

[Bahman]

I have never heard anything like this before and it sounds very strange and not at all Christian. How can the soul be a form of a body when it exists separate from the body? A body is by definition a physical, material thing, bound by the laws of thermodynamics and enslaved to entropy. The soul is eternal and not a physical thing. Also, just because the soul is no longer attached to the body why would it lose all its distinguishing features? Especially when the soul is marked by what was done when in the body, i.e. sin, baptism etc. How could a soul be judged if it was somehow wiped after death? If anything, the soul is more likely to be distinguished than the body since the soul can only be completely honest and our bodies hide things all the time.

Read the Bible. Read the Catechism. Stop reading whatever it is that you’re reading because it doesn’t make sense either from the point of view of the spiritual life or the principles of physics.

This is basically hylemorphic dualism which is the theory that Aquinas believe on it so I believe it is very catholic.

 

[seagal]

I am puzzled with the concepts of soul and resurrection for a while. The problem is as following: Soul is defined as form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. This means that soul is formless after death hence all attributes like, personality, identity, etc are gone upon death meaning that all souls do look similar after death. The act of resurrection is problematic now since all attributes related to a person is gone upon death.

Your thought?

I think your definition of soul is faulty. The definitions I’ve found are

“The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.”

“The principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.”

“The spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings”.

The catechism teaches that God creates each soul, so I suppose, being God, he would make sure that each soul carries the characteristics of the person it inhabits. Or possibly it is the soul that gives the person those characteristics. The church doesn’t define how this works precisely. I’ve even heard one theologian (I think it was Peter Kreeft) say we are not bodies with souls, we are souls with bodies. I don’t know how orthodox that idea is but I like it.

 

[runningdude]

I am puzzled with the concepts of soul and resurrection for a while. The problem is as following: Soul is defined as form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. This means that soul is formless after death hence all attributes like, personality, identity, etc are gone upon death meaning that all souls do look similar after death. The act of resurrection is problematic now since all attributes related to a person is gone upon death.

Your thought?

The church teaches that man has two elements to his nature: *body *and spirit; the *soul *depends on both elements.

My working theory is that the soul is the “pot” that contains the molecules, proteins, cells, etc, that constitute the body. The *spirit * has a “spoon” to stir the pot, and interact with the world.

Throughout our earthly lives, cells are constantly shed and replaced; the “pot” is slowly drained and refilled. Upon death, the pot is emptied and can no longer be refilled by natural means!

The spirit has thus nothing to stir, but still possesses an empty pot in the shape of its original body. At the resurrection, the soul is supernaturally reanimated with new matter. All blemishes, wounds, and broken hearts are restored stronger than ever in our natural lives.

 

[Bahman]

I think your definition of soul is faulty. The definitions I’ve found are

I don’t think so. Which sort dualism do you believe on?

The catechism teaches that God creates each soul, so I suppose, being God, he would make sure that each soul carries the characteristics of the person it inhabits. Or possibly it is the soul that gives the person those characteristics. The church doesn’t define how this works precisely. I’ve even heard one theologian (I think it was Peter Kreeft) say we are not bodies with souls, we are souls with bodies. I don’t know how orthodox that idea is but I like it.

We know that there exist several problems that catechism teaching cannot resolve. For example consider the case of a person who has Alzheimer. The person cannot recognize his/her personality even when s/he is alive so soul cannot apparently resolve the problem of identity.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Bahman is right, the definition of the soul as “the form of the body” is very Catholic. The concept of hylomorphism goes back to Aristotle (see, e.g., De Anima ii, 2 and iii, 4), but the Church has baptized the idea, St. Thomas and others having used it to explain certain points of theology (see, e.g., S.T. I, Q. 76). It doesn’t generally concern us rank-and-file faithful in our day-to-day lives, which is why we don’t hear about it from the pulpit.

Still, it is relevant today, in part because there’s a widespread notion that a man *is *his soul, and that the body is just a shell. But clearly this is not true, as the body is an integral part of a human being. Our souls are not angels; they are made to work through bodies. And we do not become angels in heaven, either (though we will be like them in respect to immortality–Lk. 20:36); our bodies are resurrected and reunited with our souls forever.

Getting back to the OP, Bahman, you wrote, “the soul is formless after death”; I think you meant to say, “the soul is without matter after death” (the body being the matter). This is indeed somewhat of a problem in metaphysics, but it is not a problem for God. The following is my own opinion. After death, God sustains the soul by a miraculous intervention, so that we can perceive, understand, and experience reality even apart from our bodies.

 

[GEddie]

You are correct that there is no “person” after death; person = soul + body.

However, souls do not “look” like anything per se; they are nonphysical and unseen.

While the souls’ propensities and abilities (like life and mind) would go into a kind of abeyance without a human body to hold and express life or a head for the mind to live in, the soul itself survives – it is not subject to death because nonphysical-- and when restored to embodiedness, will be good as new.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

Bahman is right, the definition of the soul as “the form of the body” is very Catholic. The concept of hylomorphism goes back to Aristotle (see, e.g., De Anima ii, 2 and iii, 4), but the Church has baptized the idea, St. Thomas and others having used it to explain certain points of theology (see, e.g., S.T. I, Q. 76). It doesn’t generally concern us rank-and-file faithful in our day-to-day lives, which is why we don’t hear about it from the pulpit.

Still, it is relevant today, in part because there’s a widespread notion that a man *is *his soul, and that the body is just a shell. But clearly this is not true, as the body is an integral part of a human being. Our souls are not angels; they are made to work through bodies. And we do not become angels in heaven, either (though we will be like them in respect to immortality–Lk. 20:36); our bodies are resurrected and reunited with our souls forever.

Getting back to the OP, Bahman, you wrote, “the soul is formless after death”; I think you meant to say, “the soul is without matter after death” (the body being the matter). This is indeed somewhat of a problem in metaphysics, but it is not a problem for God. The following is my own opinion. After death, God sustains the soul by a miraculous intervention, so that we can perceive, understand, and experience reality even apart from our bodies.

I meant formless soul cannot have any shape when there is no body. Consider the case a person who has Alzheimer and the person lose his/her identity which means that soul cannot animate the body well
when body is there. Body in principle is chunk of matter at soul disposal so the problem related to losing identity cannot be because of matter but soul which gives shape to the matter, namely body.

I am happy that you accept that there is a metaphysical problem here. However entering a God who can resolve all metaphysical problems miraculously put me in the position that I could not continue the debate any further.

 

[Bahman]

You are correct that there is no “person” after death; person = soul + body.

However, souls do not “look” like anything per se; they are nonphysical and unseen.

While the souls’ propensities and abilities (like life and mind) would go into a kind of abeyance without a human body to hold and express life or a head for the mind to live in, the soul itself survives – it is not subject to death because nonphysical-- and when restored to embodiedness, will be good as new.

ICXC NIKA

The problem is that soul become formless upon the death since there is no matter that it could animate. This means that everything related to the person, like personality is gone upon death so God has to recreate a body which is exactly could function like the former life to allow soul animate the body similar to past. The problem in here is that all souls look like similar without a body which force us to accept the recreation of body in order to keep a consistent picture which for this we need to accept a God who could miraculously resolve all problems related to resurrection.

 

[GEddie]

The problem is that soul become formless upon the death since there is no matter that it could animate. This means that everything related to the person, like personality is gone upon death so God has to recreate a body which is exactly could function like the former life to allow soul animate the body similar to past. The problem in here is that all souls look like similar without a body which force us to accept the recreation of body in order to keep a consistent picture which for this we need to accept a God who could miraculously resolve all problems related to resurrection.

Again, souls do not **look **like anything. They are spiritual; they do not reflect light.

A body has to be reformed around them to enable them to function. Saint Paul called this the spiritual body; pneumatikon soma. No biggie or problemo; our dear old human bodies were grown around our souls when life began.

Once the pneumatikon soma is doing the breathing, the soul will again be fully able.

ICXC NIKA

 

[seagal]

Again, souls do not **look **like anything. They are spiritual; they do not reflect light.

Like angels, spiritual beings without material form, but undoubtedly some kind of form or they wouldn’t be individuals. I’m not saying we’re angels with skin on, only that spiritual forms, such as our souls, are not made of material that we’re familiar with.

 

[Maddie26]

I hate to have to say it, but you really have to be careful with grammar when you talk about theology. Saying that “the soul is a form of body” means that the soul is capable of being put into a physical class of objects. Saying that “the soul is the form of the body” means something quite different, namely that what is done in the body affects the soul and vice versa.

Bahman says : “I meant formless soul cannot have any shape when there is no body. Consider the case a person who has Alzheimer and the person lose his/her identity which means that soul cannot animate the body well
when body is there. Body in principle is chunk of matter at soul disposal so the problem related to losing identity cannot be because of matter but soul which gives shape to the matter, namely body.”
And: " We know that there exist several problems that catechism teaching cannot resolve. For example consider the case of a person who has Alzheimer. The person cannot recognize his/her personality even when s/he is alive so soul cannot apparently resolve the problem of identity."

If the soul is the form of the body then death does not make the soul formless. You are using two terms with different meanings. Even if you take “form” to mean “physical shape, like a square” if A gives form to B then A is still a square after B decomposes. It’s fundamental squareness is unchanged. The soul that gives function and cause to the body does not lose function and cause after death since they were both material to the soul when it was linked to the body.

Secondly, Alzheimer’s does not mean that the person’s soul has left the body. The soul is still there, the brain just cannot process it. It is a disease, not death. Recognizing one’s identity is not required in order for one to have a soul. Babies have souls and they cannot recite their phone number. In the same way that the soul can be damaged through mortal sin, the body can be damaged.

 

[Bahman]

Again, souls do not **look **like anything. They are spiritual; they do not reflect light.

A body has to be reformed around them to enable them to function. Saint Paul called this the spiritual body; pneumatikon soma. No biggie or problemo; our dear old human bodies were grown around our souls when life began.

Once the pneumatikon soma is doing the breathing, the soul will again be fully able.

ICXC NIKA

I didn’t say that soul look like anything. I did say that soul is the form of the body which upon death it gets separate from body hence it cannot give form to anything so it is formless.

 

[Bahman]

I hate to have to say it, but you really have to be careful with grammar when you talk about theology. Saying that “the soul is a form of body” means that the soul is capable of being put into a physical class of objects. Saying that “the soul is the form of the body” means something quite different, namely that what is done in the body affects the soul and vice versa.

Bahman says : “I meant formless soul cannot have any shape when there is no body. Consider the case a person who has Alzheimer and the person lose his/her identity which means that soul cannot animate the body well
when body is there. Body in principle is chunk of matter at soul disposal so the problem related to losing identity cannot be because of matter but soul which gives shape to the matter, namely body.”
And: " We know that there exist several problems that catechism teaching cannot resolve. For example consider the case of a person who has Alzheimer. The person cannot recognize his/her personality even when s/he is alive so soul cannot apparently resolve the problem of identity."

If the soul is the form of the body then death does not make the soul formless. You are using two terms with different meanings. Even if you take “form” to mean “physical shape, like a square” if A gives form to B then A is still a square after B decomposes. It’s fundamental squareness is unchanged. The soul that gives function and cause to the body does not lose function and cause after death since they were both material to the soul when it was linked to the body.

Secondly, Alzheimer’s does not mean that the person’s soul has left the body. The soul is still there, the brain just cannot process it. It is a disease, not death. Recognizing one’s identity is not required in order for one to have a soul. Babies have souls and they cannot recite their phone number. In the same way that the soul can be damaged through mortal sin, the body can be damaged.

Soul is formless since it is not material. How anything which is formless could be damaged?

 

[Bahman]

The church teaches that man has two elements to his nature: *body *and spirit; the *soul *depends on both elements.

My working theory is that the soul is the “pot” that contains the molecules, proteins, cells, etc, that constitute the body. The *spirit * has a “spoon” to stir the pot, and interact with the world.

Throughout our earthly lives, cells are constantly shed and replaced; the “pot” is slowly drained and refilled. Upon death, the pot is emptied and can no longer be refilled by natural means!

The spirit has thus nothing to stir, but still possesses an empty pot in the shape of its original body. At the resurrection, the soul is supernaturally reanimated with new matter. All blemishes, wounds, and broken hearts are restored stronger than ever in our natural lives.

Soul is formless since it cannot be decomposed so I am afraid that your theory doesn’t work.

 

[Bahman]

Like angels, spiritual beings without material form, but undoubtedly some kind of form or they wouldn’t be individuals. I’m not saying we’re angels with skin on, only that spiritual forms, such as our souls, are not made of material that we’re familiar with.

Soul is just a formless thing which is not made another material and strangely can give form to matter.

 

[Maddie26]

Ask a priest in person if you are willing to listen to their answer.

 

[Vico]

I am puzzled with the concepts of soul and resurrection for a while. The problem is as following: Soul is defined as form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. This means that soul is formless after death hence all attributes like, personality, identity, etc are gone upon death meaning that all souls do look similar after death. The act of resurrection is problematic now since all attributes related to a person is gone upon death.

Your thought?

A human person is a body animated by the soul.The soul is the substantial form, but there are other attributes. The rational capacity is a property of the soul alone. God creates the soul for each person and infuses it into the body at the time of insemination.

 

[runningdude]

Soul is formless since it cannot be decomposed so I am afraid that your theory doesn’t work.

I do not believe you read my “theory”. It does not depend on the soul being “decomposed”.