User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 57

  1. #31
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    One of St. Augustine's concerns (later mentioned by Bertrand Russell) is that
    - if it is the soul that sins, and
    - the soul is not transmitted,
    - how is it possible for a soul created anew to inherit the 'Adamic sin'?
    Isn't the soul that's created anew clean, pure, untained? If it is, and it is not transmitted, then it shouldn't carry the "Adamic sin"!


    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    - The soul sins through the body with which it is inextricably tied up for the duration of our one life on earth...

    - Yes... the soul is not transmitted... it is generated spontaneously at the moment of conception of the fetus...

    - Thus, by dint of its tie with the body the soul is able to 'inherit' sin from Adam through an unbroken corporeal line.

    So, the soul is created anew, clean, pure, and untainted... it is not transmitted and it is yet able to inherit Adamic sin.

    __________________________________________________ _______________________

    The answer may not be the 'right' one, but I believe it's internally coherent and consistent.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

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

  2. #32
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    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 corporal-partem.
    Well that would explain it, I guess. Though the idea of sin rubbing off onto the soul seems a little fantastic.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #33
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    One of St. Augustine's concerns (later mentioned by Bertrand Russell) is that
    - if it is the soul that sins, and
    - the soul is not transmitted,
    - how is it possible for a soul created anew to inherit the 'Adamic sin'?
    Isn't the soul that's created anew clean, pure, untained? If it is, and it is not transmitted, then it shouldn't carry the "Adamic sin"!


    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    - The soul sins through the body with which it is inextricably tied up for the duration of our one life on earth...

    - Yes... the soul is not transmitted... it is generated spontaneously at the moment of conception of the fetus...


    - Thus, by dint of its tie with the body the soul is able to 'inherit' sin from Adam through an unbroken corporeal line.

    So, the soul is created anew, clean, pure, and untainted... it is not transmitted and it is yet able to inherit Adamic sin.

    __________________________________________________ _______________________

    The answer may not be the 'right' one, but I believe it's internally coherent and consistent.

    It is internally consistent only if we accept the bolded premise. But one might just as well make something up entirely to account for the transfer of sin. I am not familiar with the theological school that espouses this belief, though, so I will not press the matter further until I am caught up on the doctrine.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #34
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Well that would explain it, I guess. Though the idea of sin rubbing off onto the soul seems a little fantastic.
    But that's the whole problem... we go back to issues Descartes was dealing with... how does the soul, which is immaterial, affect the body, which is material, and vice versa?! This is what I pointed out in my first post... there are very deep issues to be dealt with while considering a traducianist (I just like using that name) explanation...

    viz. traducianism perfectly explains transmission of original sin via the body to the initially perfect and uncorrupted soul......

    AT THE EXPENSE of an acceptable answer to the question: how does bodily sinfulness transmit to the soul? and also at the cost of accepting simultaneous body-soul generation.

    __________________________________________________ __________

    Orangey: I would submit this for your consideration though, a sort of counterfactual thinking....

    - If sins of the body could not rub off on the soul, then the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane.

    - If the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane, then souls could not go to hell.

    - If souls could not go to hell, then there is no reason for people to live moral lives on earth.

    - If there is no reason for people to live moral lives on earth, then the coming of Christ, His suffering for our sins, His self-sacrifice, and His resurrection, were completely meaningless.

    So, the clause "sins of the body cannot rub off on the soul", by reductio ad absurdum, is shown to be false.

    Therefore, sins of the body CAN rub off on the soul.

    (In essence, the Gospel of Christ compels you to accept that bodily sins affect the soul.)
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

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

  5. #35
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    It is internally consistent only if we accept the bolded premise. But one might just as well make something up entirely to account for the transfer of sin. I am not familiar with the theological school that espouses this belief, though, so I will not press the matter further until I am caught up on the doctrine.
    Internal consistency is merely a matter of validity (conclusions follow logically from the premises)... i.e. none of the premises need be true.

    But, as you're indicating, one has to accept simultaneous generation of body and soul, which is a major blow to people arguing for the SOUNDNESS (validity + truth of all premises) of the argument I laid out.

    I'd like to see what you think of my argument [see directly above] for the transmission of sin from body to soul though... it's obviously also extremely important to the truth-value of the line I'm following.

    __________________________________________________ ____________

    P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate. I don't think you need to be really well-read on traducianism or any given school of thought to argue some of its main points... I was really just using traducianism as a leaping-off point for this discussion.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

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

  6. #36
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    The problem with the Bible is that there are too many (ostensible) contradictions... also terminology gaps between current usage and usage back then...

    "The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

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

  7. #37
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    Internal consistency is merely a matter of validity (conclusions follow logically from the premises)... i.e. none of the premises need be true.

    But, as you're indicating, one has to accept simultaneous generation of body and soul, which is a major blow to people arguing for the SOUNDNESS (validity + truth of all premises) of the argument I laid out.

    I'd like to see what you think of my argument for the transmission of sin from body to soul though... its obviously also extremely important to the truth-value of the line I'm following.

    __________________________________________________ ____________

    P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate.
    I was rather careless in my choice of vocabulary. You are correct, the argument is logically valid (internally consistent) independent of whether or not the indicated premise (or any of the other premises) is true.

    The counterfactual argument that you have presented is also logically valid. I can find no inconsistency. I will remark, however, that the entire argument rests upon a great deal of assumptions that we have no good reason to suppose are true. We should be reminded of Ockham in this instance.

    P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate. I don't think you need to be really well-read on traducianism or any given school of thought to argue some of its main points... I was really just using traducianism as a leaping-off point for this discussion.
    Ah okay...just thought I might not be understanding something important is all. And I don't personally espouse any of the arguments or beliefs presented either. Just having some fun .

    AT THE EXPENSE of an acceptable answer to the question: how does bodily sinfulness transmit to the soul? and also at the cost of accepting simultaneous body-soul generation.
    I can see no other logical way. Even if we admit that souls are transmitted, then we cannot admit that individuals have unique souls. There would also be the matter of explaining how Adam's sin was transferred to his soul originally, and why he should be the only case where his sins are transmitted by soul to future individuals. If we accept that people are born sinful and in need of saving, then we must accept that the body transfers sins to the soul.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #38
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    So a human soul cannot express itself or learn without a body? Where do you get that from?
    If a human did either of the above without a body, it would be a supernatural event.

    Say I had a 30 year old man who's been in a sensory deprivation tank from birth in my basement. If I pulled him out the day after his 30th birthday, and he knew how to speak at all, or do basic arithmetic, then that would be a miracle. Similarly, if he started to telekinetically move the furniture around in my basement, that would be supernatural.

    At the very least, the mere potential to do either of the above without a body is not a quality that all humans always have. Admittedly, it's a logical possibility, but it's not actual.

  9. #39
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    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.
    It would, but I don't believe the body's sinfulness can taint the soul. The root of sin is spiritual. The body makes the inward sin visible; the root sin becomes manifest in the fruit sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    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...
    We do? I think that raises too many problems. I need to deliver some papers, but I hope to combine this post with the passage from Ezekial you quoted to show how this interpretation is unacceptable for the Christian... to be continued.

  10. #40
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    [I]- If sins of the body could not rub off on the soul, then the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane.
    I don't think this follows at all. I think the soul chooses corruption, and sinful deeds ensue. The deeds themselves don't corrupt it.

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