User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 57

  1. #21
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    No. Reincarnation is when the same soul inhabits a different body. I'm talking about the recreation of a new but identical body and soul.

    Not "outlived". That would imply continuity. I mean an end to soul and body. And then a recreation of a new but identical soul without the body which originally generated it. And without the ability to sin, I guess.

    If it seems irrelevant to the argument at hand, it's because it is. Just a thought I had. Sorry. Let me finish my drink, have a smoke, and then I'll see if I have anything meaningful to contribute.
    Well then we'd have a bunch of people from thousands of years ago continually springing back into existence, only this time sinless!
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #22
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Well then we'd have a bunch of people from thousands of years ago continually springing back into existence, only this time sinless!
    Nono, I wasn't talking about how new souls are generated. I was talking about how a soul "bound up with the body in creation" could continue to exist (or, more precisely, exist again) following the destruction of the body. I was addressing a single post of yours, not the topic under discussion. Reread my first post and the post quoted in it.

    As I said, it was an off-topic interjection.

    The recreation of the soul independent of the body would take place either in the future (at the resurrection) or in the present in heaven.

    New thought: if there is such a thing as "imputed righteousness", couldn't there also be such a thing as "imputed sinfulness"? Just as the consequence of imputed righteousness is a restoration of relationship with God and freedom for his holy spirit to sanctify, so too could imputed sinfulness break relationship with God and thereby isolate humanity from the good desires that only God can give. Perhaps the sin of Adam isn't inherited but imputed? This would allow a soul created pure to be nonetheless immediately tainted with sinfulness.

    Hmm, I'm missing something here. But I'm not ready to give up on this train of thought.
    Last edited by JivinJeffJones; 07-03-2008 at 07:51 AM. Reason: tenses. I muddle them

  3. #23
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    The recreation of the soul independent of the body would take place either in the future (at the resurrection) or in the present in heaven.
    Oh okay...I get what you are saying.

    New thought: if there is such a thing as "imputed righteousness", couldn't there also be such a thing as "imputed sinfulness"? Just as the consequence of imputed righteousness is a restoration of relationship with God and freedom for his holy spirit to sanctify, so too could imputed sinfulness break relationship with God and thereby isolated humanity from the good desires that only God can give. Perhaps the sin of Adam isn't inherited but imputed?
    Yes, this seems to make sense, at least if one accepts the concept of imputed righteousness. However then there is the question as to whether imputing the sins of Adam onto the innocents of the future is morally just. But that is a different issue.

    Good points.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #24
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    But if the soul is bound up with the body in creation, then shouldn't it cease to exist when the body does as well?
    No... body and soul are generated simultaneously, but the soul lives on after the death of the body... the body's like a line segment (a line cut off on either end by two definite points) and the soul is like a ray (a definite beginning with no end... just goes on in one direction to infinity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Edit: Well, if our souls outlived our bodies (or existed independently of them) then it wouldn't need to be recreated.
    My point exactly...

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Only if you assume some strong form of mind-body supervenience.

    But God has the power to sustain spiritual existence apart from physical existence/physical states.

    While it is natural for humans to exist with bodies, it is not necessary for a human to exist with a body. Or, to put it another way, destroying a human body, (i.e., causing the body to become medically dead), harms the person but does not destroy the person.
    That makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    As far as I know, every human soul that has come into being came into being simultaneously with the body it is related to. Not that it's logically impossible for a human soul to come into being first, but that would be unnatural.

    I'm not familiar with the "traducianist" argument, but, based on Samuel's thread, I don't think its conclusion follows from its premises.
    I don't quite see how that is... as long as one accepts what you have stated, simultaneous generation of body-soul PLUS the possibility of the body's sinfulness (inherited from Adam) tainting the soul, it works out.

    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    The major issue, to my mind, is whether or not the sins of the body can corrupt the soul. Though I'm not sure about the existence of a soul separate from the mind-body complex, if I were to believe in a soul, I would see it as entirely incorruptible... but in Christian metaphysics and eschatology, one must allow for the corruption of soul-stuff, otherwise eternal damnation wouldn't make sense. So, presuming the corruptibility of the soul, and accepting that the soul must be created at the time of the creation of the body-stuff, then I think one is compelled to believe that the sinfulness inherited from Adam must transmit from body to soul... we must accept the bodily transmission of sinfulness, or at the very least the inherent corruption of the flesh post-apple consumption...
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  5. #25
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    However then there is the question as to whether imputing the sins of Adam onto the innocents of the future is morally just. But that is a different issue.
    It doesn't seem particularly just to impute righteousness to the guilty, either.

  6. #26
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    It doesn't seem particularly just to impute righteousness to the guilty, either.
    No indeed. It is the whole business of imputing, whether righteousness or sinfulness, that is morally suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    No... body and soul are generated simultaneously, but the soul lives on after the death of the body... the body's like a line segment (a line cut off on either side by two definite points) and the soul is like a ray (a definite beginning with no end... just goes on in one direction to infinity).
    Then what has the body to do with the soul in the matter of transferring Adam's sin?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #27
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    1.) Why would the creation of a soul without the body be bad?
    To better explain this, it would help to make a quick distinction. It wouldn't necessarily be bad for a soul to be created without a body. It would be bad for a human soul to be created without a body. A human soul, (as opposed to an angelic soul), expresses itself and learns about the world through its body. Imagine if a mad scientist grew a human in a sensory deprivation tank and gave it drugs to immobilze it. What do you think would happen to that person's mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    3.) What are your views on the OP's question?
    I agree with autumn.

    Adam was a representative head. Part of the consequences of his failure was that (spiritual) life would not be extended to his progeny on the basis of his work.

  8. #28
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Then what has the body to do with the soul in the matter of transferring Adam's sin?
    The body provides the direct link back to Adam! If all human souls weren't created with Adam or immediately at the moment of Adam's sin, then how could they inherit his sin? Thus, if souls are created later on, the only connection we have to Adam is through our bodies, unless God goes out of His way to implant original sin into each newly-minted soul, like a factory purposefully releasing products with defects (by, say, denting each new car with a hammer as it leaves the factory), which would defeat the whole point... souls are perfect when created... what is flawed is the body, which passes on its defect to the passenger soul.

    Adam and Eve.... from them are all human beings bodily descended... meaning the flesh and blood of human beings, their bloodline, can all be traced back to a primordial first man and first woman... but with this ancestry comes the heritage of original sin... original sin is passed on through the body... through the flesh... through the blood... maybe, in contemporary terms, genetically coded!

    Thousands of years later... generations and generations of parents and children later... let's take a random couple... at the moment of conception of the fetus, the fetus is endowed with a unique, pure, immortal soul (with distinct beginning but no end)... as a result of the commingling or joining of body and soul, the Adamic sin rubs off on the soul and the child, when born, must be baptized in ritual cleansing... but it's only ritual... throughout its life, the child, the new body-soul being must accept Christ, ratify Christ's covenant in his/her heart, and be judged worthy of entering heaven as a shriven soul post corpore-partem.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  9. #29
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    No indeed. It is the whole business of imputing, whether righteousness or sinfulness, that is morally suspect.
    As are the linked concepts of substitution, atonement and sacrifice. It's basically saying "Let's pretend that this person/thing did the bad thing instead of that person."

  10. #30
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    It would be bad for a human soul to be created without a body. A human soul, (as opposed to an angelic soul), expresses itself and learns about the world through its body.
    So a human soul cannot express itself or learn without a body? Where do you get that from?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-27-2015, 12:14 PM
  2. Matt 6:21. you can;t explain that
    By Evil Otter in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-13-2013, 11:59 AM
  3. can`t find that youtube video with the old autist and engineer with dyslexia
    By Triforce in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2013, 05:57 AM
  4. What can NFPs do that NTPs can't do better?
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 09:29 PM
  5. How can we find that resonant synchronization?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 06:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO