Souls With Bodies vs. Bodies With Souls

[Bubba_Switzler]

One subtle point of dispute I have noticed is between those who take the view that we are souls with bodies and those who believe we are bodies with souls.

If we are souls with bodies then we are primarily rational and only secondarily influenced by our bodily experience. In this view, the body is like a lense through which we experience the world. The lens may break down, even die, but the soul is immortal. Someday we may get a new body. This is a view that is heavily influenced by Hellenstic philosophy.

If we are bodies with souls then we are primarily natural and material and only secondarily spiritual. In this view we are nothing without our bodies and a bodily ressurection is essential to our existence. The soul is an emergent property of the body and our biological traits are real and defining. This is supposedly the view of the pre-Christian Jews and early Christians but it is also more consistent with modern theories of science and evolution.

Your thoughts?

 

[davidv]

One subtle point of dispute I have noticed is between those who take the view that we are souls with bodies and those who believe we are bodies with souls.

If we are souls with bodies then we are primarily rational and only secondarily influenced by our bodily experience. In this view, the body is like a lense through which we experience the world. The lens may break down, even die, but the soul is immortal. Someday we may get a new body. This is a view that is heavily influenced by Hellenstic philosophy.

If we are bodies with souls then we are primarily natural and material and only secondarily spiritual. In this view we are nothing without our bodies and a bodily ressurection is essential to our existence. The soul is an emergent property of the body and our biological traits are real and defining. This is supposedly the view of the pre-Christian Jews and early Christians but it is also more consistent with modern theories of science and evolution.

Your thoughts?

Both of the choices presented in the topic line are wrong.

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.

We are personal beings uniquely created by God to love and serve Him and to be with Him forever.

 

[dshix]

We are body-souls. To consider either the body or the soul to be primarily the person is to misunderstand how inseparable the two parts are in making us human.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As the others have said, we are a body-soul composite, not a body plus a soul or a soul plus a body. In the two scenarios you present, one of parts is given priority over the others. In reality, they are both of equal importance.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let me offer a couple questions to clarify the matter?

Is the body essential? If we are, as has been said here, a body-soul composite do we exist without our body?

To what extent is our behavior a consequence of our mortal heritage and nature?

 

[davidv]

Let me offer a couple questions to clarify the matter?

Is the body essential?

To be a complete human, yes.

If we are, as has been said here, a body-soul composite do we exist without our body?

Not while we are alive in this life. We will exist without a body after we die until the resurrection of the dead.

To what extent is our behavior a consequence of our mortal heritage and nature?

How is related to bodies and souls?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

We are body-souls. To consider either the body or the soul to be primarily the person is to misunderstand how inseparable the two parts are in making us human.

I agree with you.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To be a complete human, yes. Not while we are alive in this life. We will exist without a body after we die until the resurrection of the dead.

What is the nature of this intermediate existence and how is it inferior such that we look forward to a bodily resurrection?

How is related to bodies and souls?

The human body is a product of evolution. We can say that a wolf exhibits certain behaviors due to how it evolved. Can we say the same of human beings?

 

[davidv]

What is the nature of this intermediate existence

Spiritual

and how is it inferior such that we look forward to a bodily resurrection?

It is absent the body.

The human body is a product of evolution.

No it is a creation of God.

We can say that a wolf exhibits certain behaviors due to how it evolved. Can we say the same of human beings?

No.

 

[dshix]

The human body is a product of evolution. We can say that a wolf exhibits certain behaviors due to how it evolved. Can we say the same of human beings?

One detail which I should, perhaps, make clear regarding theories of evolution and Adam and Eve:

Metaphysically, a non-human body cannot have its soul “removed” and “replaced” with a human soul, because the human body and soul are inseparable and created for each other alone (as we have been discussing).

Therefore, the theory that Adam and Eve were apes who evolved to be intelligent enough for God to “infuse” them with intelligent, reasonable, human souls, is provably wrong thanks to metaphysics.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Let me offer a couple questions to clarify the matter?

Is the body essential? If we are, as has been said here, a body-soul composite do we exist without our body?

Yes, it is essential. Our souls will continue to exist after we die, and for a time this existence will be incomplete because we will lack our bodies. After the general resurrection, we will be made whole again.

To what extent is our behavior a consequence of our mortal heritage and nature?

I don’t follow. External forces can shape our outlooks and decisions, but in the end they are our decisions, and we will be made accountable for them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One detail which I should, perhaps, make clear regarding theories of evolution and Adam and Eve:

Metaphysically, a non-human body cannot have its soul “removed” and “replaced” with a human soul, because the human body and soul are inseparable and created for each other alone (as we have been discussing).

Therefore, the theory that Adam and Eve were apes who evolved to be intelligent enough for God to “infuse” them with intelligent, reasonable, human souls, is provably wrong thanks to metaphysics.

I assume from your mention of the removal of the soul of a non-human body that you are of the opinion that all animals have souls. But why would a replacement be necessary? If all animals have souls and human animals have human souls there is no need for a replacement. This is consistent with the view of the soul as an emergent property of the body. At some point in evolution not only human bodies but human souls came into being. One might easily relate that to some form of intelligence, e.g. moral capacity.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, it is essential. Our souls will continue to exist after we die, and for a time this existence will be incomplete because we will lack our bodies. After the general resurrection, we will be made whole again.

In what sense is a disembodied soul incomplete? DavidV said that, “We are personal beings uniquely created by God to love and serve Him and to be with Him forever.” How is a body essential to that? Don’t the angels serve and be with God without bodies? What does the body add to our existence such that we should be resurrected again?

I don’t follow. External forces can shape our outlooks and decisions, but in the end they are our decisions, and we will be made accountable for them.

But I’m more interested in the internal nature of self. If we look at the evolution of creatures we can discern a pattern that explains certain behaviors, e.g. chasing, catching, and eating prey. Now at some point in the process of evolution humans acquired a moral capability so that we can make a conscious decision but was this a black and white transition from animalistic behavior to perfect rationality or something greyer? At a minimum, we can say that we experience animal urges e.g. to eat and copulate, right? Are those external forces or internal to our essential being?

 

[fisherman_carl]

What is the nature of this intermediate existence and how is it inferior such that we look forward to a bodily resurrection?

God originally created us with bodies. However, because of sin came the penalty of death. Death was not part of God’s original design for man. Yes, the Scripture says that God created man and the plants and animals from the earth. But, then it says that he took man and put him in the garden. So this means man was not created in the garden but placed there after. And it also means the garden was not the whole earth but a place on the earth that God made into a paradise. So man is created from something beneath him, the earth, and then God elevates man by making him in his image of immortality and assigns him a place in a supernatural paradase where God and man were in relationship, or in other words a place where nature is elevated by grace and where God condescends to man. Such a place must be more than a natural paradise precisely because God and Adam ‘walked’ together and Adam never died.

So, the point of the resurrection is to restore everything that was lost due to sin and death. This includes the restoration of the body. However, not merely to revive the body to what it was, but elevated by supernatural grace to make the body immortal. St. Paul calls it a ‘spiritual’ body. Jesus’ resurrected body could walk through walls. So the resurrected body will be better than what we have now. We will be able to do more things and have less limitations. So we are not just restored to what we were before the fall but God lifts us up to a higher place.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In what sense is a disembodied soul incomplete? DavidV said that, “We are personal beings uniquely created by God to love and serve Him and to be with Him forever.” How is a body essential to that? Don’t the angels serve and be with God without bodies? What does the body add to our existence such that we should be resurrected again?

It is incomplete because God created us to be a body-soul combination, not to just be disembodied souls. If we were intended to simply be souls, then that it what God would have created. In fact, that’s what he did create with the angels. Instead, God created us with both a body and a soul. It is not a matter of it adding anything, or being necessary in and of itself; it’s how God designed it to be, so it is essential to our natures. Can we imagine an existence without bodies? Certainly; but that is not the existence we were created for.

But I’m more interested in the internal nature of self. If we look at the evolution of creatures we can discern a pattern that explains certain behaviors, e.g. chasing, catching, and eating prey. Now at some point in the process of evolution humans acquired a moral capability so that we can make a conscious decision but was this a black and white transition from animalistic behavior to perfect rationality or something greyer? At a minimum, we can say that we experience animal urges e.g. to eat and copulate, right? Are those external forces or internal to our essential being?

The need to eat and procreate are inherent to our nature as physical beings, because this is how we sustains ourselves individually and as a species. As for the question about the development of rational capacity, I think most theologians conclude that this was a black and white transition. Rationality came when we were given rational souls, and since Adam and Eve were the first to be given this gift we can conclude that any that came before them did not share their capacity of rational thought. This is something we will probably never know completely this side of eternity though, the historical evidence we’d need to prove this one way or the other just doesn’t exist anymore.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Can we imagine an existence without bodies? Certainly; but that is not the existence we were created for.

Well, ok, but why?

The need to eat and procreate are inherent to our nature as physical beings, because this is how we sustains ourselves individually and as a species. As for the question about the development of rational capacity, I think most theologians conclude that this was a black and white transition. Rationality came when we were given rational souls, and since Adam and Eve were the first to be given this gift we can conclude that any that came before them did not share their capacity of rational thought. This is something we will probably never know completely this side of eternity though, the historical evidence we’d need to prove this one way or the other just doesn’t exist anymore.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve were the first in the evolution of mankind to cross some threshold of moral intelligence and rationality. My question is more about what we are, what we have inherited from that pre-rational stage. In short, how animal are we still? What does it mean to be a material being? (And, as above, why?)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

God originally created us with bodies. However, because of sin came the penalty of death. Death was not part of God’s original design for man. Yes, the Scripture says that God created man and the plants and animals from the earth. But, then it says that he took man and put him in the garden. So this means man was not created in the garden but placed there after. And it also means the garden was not the whole earth but a place on the earth that God made into a paradise. So man is created from something beneath him, the earth, and then God elevates man by making him in his image of immortality and assigns him a place in a supernatural paradase where God and man were in relationship, or in other words a place where nature is elevated by grace and where God condescends to man. Such a place must be more than a natural paradise precisely because God and Adam ‘walked’ together and Adam never died.

So, the point of the resurrection is to restore everything that was lost due to sin and death. This includes the restoration of the body. However, not merely to revive the body to what it was, but elevated by supernatural grace to make the body immortal. St. Paul calls it a ‘spiritual’ body. Jesus’ resurrected body could walk through walls. So the resurrected body will be better than what we have now. We will be able to do more things and have less limitations. So we are not just restored to what we were before the fall but God lifts us up to a higher place.

This is all pretty standard stuff but I’m trying to understand why God would throw us back into even elevated material bodies. Ressurected bodies are better than mortal ones, to be sure, but better than a spiritual existence? How?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well, ok, but why?

Because that’s what God chose to do. There’s really nothing more to it than this. We won’t know why He chose to create us this way until we can ask Him directly. I know this probably isn’t a satisfactory answer, but it’s the best I can give. We simply do not know why God created us as He did, beyond that fact that this is how He willed to create us.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve were the first in the evolution of mankind to cross some threshold of moral intelligence and rationality. My question is more about what we are, what we have inherited from that pre-rational stage. In short, how animal are we still? What does it mean to be a material being? (And, as above, why?)

We are still animal in that we have the same basic needs as most animals, food, shelter and procreation. That is where our animalistic natures end though. Because we have rational souls, we are not bound by instinct like other animals, we have the capacity for choice. As for the why, we are set apart because God gave us immortal souls. He did this because, in His love, He desires for us to be with Him for eternity. As for what it means to be a material being, material beings are those that exist physically. I can’t get much broader than that.

 

[dshix]

This is all pretty standard stuff but I’m trying to understand why God would throw us back into even elevated material bodies. Ressurected bodies are better than mortal ones, to be sure, but better than a spiritual existence? How?

It is difficult for us to imagine existence without a body, so it is hard to answer your question as to why it would be better to have a resurrected body than not.

There are a few things we know, though.
First: we are accustomed to our bodies, and very comfortable in them. It would be strange and uncomfortable for us to be without them, because we were created to have them.
Second: when we are in Heaven we will not be limited by the same bodily limitations we experience here; being glorified, our bodies will not suffer, feel hunger, be limited in transportation, or any other problems we have here on earth
Third: we are accustomed to interacting with other humans bodily, and physical contact is very wonderful for us in relationships with others. We wouldn’t want to lose that.

 

[Gorgias]

Metaphysically, a non-human body cannot have its soul “removed” and “replaced” with a human soul, because the human body and soul are inseparable and created for each other alone (as we have been discussing).

Is there something different – physically or metaphysically – between a physical body (which would be human, if it had a rational soul) and a physical body of a human with a rational soul? If so, how would you distinguish the physical differences between physical bodies – or, alternately, how would you explain the metaphysical differences between these physical bodies?

Therefore, the theory that Adam and Eve were apes who evolved to be intelligent

Red herring. There is not a theory that Adam and Eve were ‘apes’. Rather, the theory that’s typically floated is that they were hominins – but without rational souls. Nice try, though…

enough for God to “infuse” them with intelligent, reasonable, human souls, is provably wrong thanks to metaphysics.

How so? (That’s the gist of my previous question, I guess. How can you demonstrate the metaphysical impossibility of a hominin without a rational soul as opposed to a hominin with a rational soul?)