Where was our soul before being born?

[egretps]

Some religions believe in pre-existence. Mormonism does and so do Hindus and Buddhists.

Maybe more.

Christians don’t believe in pre-existence. I knew one lady try and convince me that unborn babies don’t have souls until they are born and take their first breath. I was unconvinced. Either people have souls or they don’t.

Catholics like the above posters have written, believe from conception onwards. A micro ‘big bang’ of sorts.

We are Everlasting beings. We like the angels have a start, and are Everlasting. We will continue from a starting point onward.

 

[GEddie]

Nowhere .

Each soul is formed with and for a specific body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Reepicheep]

Unlucky to have a soul that contains both of what you mentioned and an immortal one to be susceptible to eternal suffering which won’t be the case if it wasn’t immortal and better never existent.

How can you, if you do not exist, benefit by not existing?

 

[Wesrock]

Can we take ourselves out of that imposition?

No.

 

[Wesrock]

Is there any argument to support this concept? Or is it considered an axiom?

Yes, there is argument on being and goodness being convertible, but that’s not a starting point of a discussion. It more follows from prior arguments, which i’m not going to delve into here.

As for the topic of this thread, there is no epistemological method to demonstrate the existence of a “soul”, much less the existence of an immortal soul. Moreover, the argument that the soul is created at the moment of conception is negated by the existence of the maternal twins and the successful “split brain” experiments. The whole concept of the soul is a left-over from the times when people assumed the existence of a “life-force”. Best leave it in the trash heap of the bad assumptions, like the luminiferous aether, the idea that mental problems are caused by demons and the like…

The existence of a soul is arguable. Again, though, it’s not the starting point in any discussion. There are more foundational topics to discuss first.

And you’re concept of a soul seems pretty childish anyway.

 

[tweedlealice]

The soul doesn’t exist until conception. The soul is the life of the body–in animals as well as human beings. But human beings have immortal souls that are created at the moment of conception when the zygote is created.

Della,
Why would St. Gregory, state that we should not destroy the fig tree that Jesus shriveled but find another garderner? Jesus was giving a parable
to us about an unproductive fig tree that had no fruit for him to eat, would be destroyed. We, who are not productive, will be judged accordingly.
Concerning the main thread, somewhere there is a
Place called the gaf. Where the spirits/ souls wait to be sent to earth as a baby. HMMMM. Will check it out.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Wow. Now there’s a big question! In the history of philosophy, there’s been plenty of ink spilled in the discussion of being and non-being!

No doubt. But that does not make the question worthy to contemplate. Of course “non-being” is just a concept, not an actual, ontological entity. Most people would say that they value their own existence. But that is irrelevant. My question is an abstract one: “is existence preferable to non-existence”? I don’t see how this question can be answered in general.

I’d buy that there’s no empirical method, but not that no method exists whatsoever.

I am not “married” to the empirical method, if anyone can present a different one. The only requirement is that the method be objective, and not the opinion of some people. So far there was no one who could present such a method. The ancient principle: “Nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu” seems to be very well established. Of course that does not mean that one must experience a “unicorn” in order to have a concept of a unicorn. We are able to use our fantasy to imagine nonexistent “things”, but most rational people can differentiate between reality and imagination.

No it isn’t. Can’t one make the argument that, at the point that the “twinning” occurs, a second soul is created?

Don’t ask me, ask the ones who believe in the existence of “souls”. But you can’t have it both ways. Either the two separate twin humans share one soul, or the “twinning” - which is different from the conception - requires a “fresh” soul (maybe two??) to be created.

Not sure where you’re going with “split brain”, especially vis-a-vis ensoulment.

The procedure of splitting the brain, effectively creates two humans, who share the rest of the body. One is dominant, and has generally control over the body. Nevertheless, sometimes the other one gets control, and the behavior of the two people is markedly different. Moreover, in theory, one of the two half brains can be transplanted into a different body. Such experiments did not happen yet with humans, but they did happen with animals. Seems strange that the scalpel of the surgeon can “cut” the immaterial soul.

 

[Della]

Della,
Why would St. Gregory, state that we should not destroy the fig tree that Jesus shriveled but find another garderner? Jesus was giving a parable
to us about an unproductive fig tree that had no fruit for him to eat, would be destroyed. We, who are not productive, will be judged accordingly.

You’ll have to explain what your citation has to do with the topic–I don’t see it.

Concerning the main thread, somewhere there is a
Place called the gaf. Where the spirits/ souls wait to be sent to earth as a baby. HMMMM. Will check it out.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

No. There’s no place where spirits/souls where wait to be sent to earth as babies. The soul is created at the moment of conception. We are souls animate bodies, which is why bodies die–when the soul leaves it. The life of the body is the soul. That is Church teaching.

 

[Fiasco]

Before our being born, I believe our soul was simply God

That’s heresy! The soul is created, and created from nothing: “ex nihilo”.

There are those who believe that our soul is forever wanting to cleave to its Creator and that if it ever succeeded it would simply cease to exist!

That’s a Pagan belief…Buddhism (Nirvana) and/or whatever! The idea of being absorbed into the Deity is anti-Christian.

In the next life, each person retains his individuality, and for those in Heaven, there’s the Beatific Vision: raw knowledge and love contact with God and the other blesseds and the angels.

As others have said, God creates the soul at conception, the just-created soul animating the just-fertilised egg. “Life begins at conception.”

Well since all life comes from God, then all souls are with God before being born. It’s your life on earth that forms you into the person you want to be.

As above: God creates the soul at conception, and that’s when life begins. The soul animates the body.

 

[mdgspencer]

Where did the light exist before you turned it on?
Hindus think we existed before we were born, believing in reincarnation. But this is not belief is not found in the Christian religion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It existed in the form of electricity (or some other form of stored energy).

the word is potential, or in this case in the mind of God

There are some Christian religions that have this belief.

No there arent, if any can be dug up, they are so fringe as to be called any religion

 

[Techno2000]

the word is potential, or in this case in the mind of God

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Don’t ask me, ask the ones who believe in the existence of “souls”. But you can’t have it both ways. Either the two separate twin humans share one soul, or the “twinning” - which is different from the conception - requires a “fresh” soul (maybe two??) to be created.

The procedure of splitting the brain, effectively creates two humans, who share the rest of the body. One is dominant, and has generally control over the body. Nevertheless, sometimes the other one gets control, and the behavior of the two people is markedly different. Moreover, in theory, one of the two half brains can be transplanted into a different body. Such experiments did not happen yet with humans, but they did happen with animals. Seems strange that the scalpel of the surgeon can “cut” the immaterial soul.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain For those following along.

What’s your proposal for people with multiple personalities? For triplets or Quads , or more?

You are assuming the soul exists in the brain. Therefore you argue for no such thing as a soul , because look at this, I just cut the two hemispheres of the brain. … now I have two seperate personable conditions in one body, therefore no soul!

This is a flawed argument. Firstly, where is your proof that you don’t possess a soul because of this cure for epilepsy? Where is your proof if there was a soul, God placed it in the brain?

 

[Fiasco]

What’s the difference?

The difference between the soul’s being created from nothing, and what?
Or is it the Latin?
Or are you having a dig at the word “created” being used twice in rapid succession?

 

[Fiasco]

What’s the difference between the soul being created from nothing by God and the soul being God prior to creation as an independent entity?

Sorry, that possibility crossed my mind, but it seemed so outrageous (which it is) that it was dismissed.
Just shows you never can tell.

There’s a big difference between God and nothing, and it shows His omnipotence. God is God: perfect, infinite, eternal. We’re…not
We’re not part of God, and we never were. We’re not sparks from the Central Fire, or some other New Age fantasy “source”.

 

[Della]

If this is the case, why should we care about God, and not worship Nothingness, our true Father (or Mother)?

We’re not “part of God” in that we are eternal, like him. We came from the mind of God and we were created “in his image and likeness” per Genesis, but we are creatures, created at the moment of conception, not pre-existing, waiting to be born or a mere part of God that went astray.

We only come into existence because a man and a woman have sex (tampering with this natural form of creating human life aside). Before that encounter, we didn’t exist and wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Souls come into existence only because a body was created that the soul animates. It’s just that simple.

How the body is animated–how the soul is created, is a mystery–even to science. I dare say it will remain a mystery until judgment day, and perhaps beyond. God doesn’t have to explain to us the processes by which he creates life. He reveals what we need to know to be reconciled to him, and very little else, and I think for good reason–precisely because we humans like to invent ideas about everything. Better to know only what one needs to know lest we come to believe a load of nonsense and lose our souls–our very selves merely to satisfy our curiosity, rather than seek the truth.

 

[Della]

How the body is animated is well known to science.

Um, no, it isn’t. Science cannot tell us what animates a living body. It can only discern when a body is alive and when it isn’t, and even that isn’t exact. People have been known to “rise” from the supposed dead hours after being declared dead. It’s not a precise thing because science doesn’t know it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So, would it be correct to say that we were part of the mind of God?

only speaking in anthropological terms. Existing passively in God’s mind, before being created actively by God’s mind

Mormons.

an offshoot religion, like Jainism or Sikhism to Hinduism. Similar origin, partly, but not the same today.

 

[Della]

youtube.com/watch?v=qPix_X-9t7E

Sorry, the nervous system does not make a dead person a living person.

 

[steve_b]

We were in the mind of God. Jeremiah 1:5