Ship of Fools: Souls

Thread: Souls Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024165

Posted by Dorcas Mallorcas (# 16456) on :

My friend is a big believer in the idea that one's being on Earth can be fundamentally separated into two parts; the soul (abstract) and the body (concrete). She believes that whenever a person fails at something or does wrong it cannont be blamed on the body, i.e. by the physical parts of herself (heads, shoulders, knees and toes), but must come from the abstract side (anger, jealousy, sadness). Because of this, she thinks that our souls must be flawed or corrupted, thus leading us to sin. She also remembers on many occasions being told that our souls are the ‘pure’ part of our humanity, that they are incorruptible and are the part of us that will join with God after death. Understandably she finds this difficult to resolve. I wondered if anyone would like to share their thoughts on this, and help to shed some light on the situation.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Ooh. That sounds like a kind of homebrew upside-down Platonism.

Plato was into the body being the source of corruption, and the soul being the uncorrupted, eternal and 'good' bit (can you tell I'm an engineer who likes to dabble [Smile]

)

'The scholastics' (no, not a Ska band - mediaeval theologians) bought into Greek thought a lot - and many people think the dualisms they bought into are pagan, and don't represent the thrust of the Jewish-Christian idea / revelation - that we are all a 'one', not split like that, that goodness and badness come out of US, and that (the good news) redemption is always possible when we f*ck it up. Amongst other things. You might find 'The fall' thread in this part of the boards relevant to some of this.

Well, someone who can say all that properly will be along in a bit, but there's my 2p since I got there first. [Razz]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I should have made that a bit longer.

So - what your friend remembers being told - is Church stuff influenced 500 years ago by Greek thought, and in many people's view not really Christian - despite, and evidenced by, the Church's record of hating the body and sex.

What your friend now thinks sits alongside Christianity fine (the mechanics of our physical bodies being directed by the 'desires of our heart') - so long as she remembers that from us can also flow great goodness and love.

Beacuse Christians believe God is the author of all love (hey, what's a loving act if it does not come from God / represent his will? Where else would it come from, if God IS love?) then many, including me, would say that love flows from the action of the Holy Spirit in people, whether they acknowledge her presence, or not.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Dorcas Mallorcas,

Your opening post seems more a matter of general theological discussion rather than a study of a particular Biblical text or theme. (This brief description of the Ship's boards might be helpful.) With the consent of the Purg hosts, I'm moving this conversation to Purgatory, our board for general discussion and debate.

Mamacita, Kerygmania Host

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

It's a backwards version of Manicheanism, they said the soul was pure and uncorrupted good and the flesh was total irredeemable evil.

I am actually going to come down the middle and say that notions like this are unhelpful. We don't divide neatly down the middle. We are integrated and whole beings and that is how we exist. Our body isn't just a thing that we are in, it IS us. I think that Christianity very often gets this wrong which is why we end up with what IMHO are strange ideas about mortification of the flesh.

I know that our physical and earthly body does not continue after death (leaving aside the doctrines of bodily resurrection) but I don't think that means that it is irrelevant to our identity now.

As for the soul being flawed and corrupted that sounds a lot like original sin. Growing up big O orthodox I was always taught that the image of God within us is not warped by virtue of us being born sinful but is marred over by our sinful actions. I always saw the Christian life as something like brass polish, all in an effort to shine it up again.

Posted by catthefat (# 8586) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Our body isn't just a thing that we are in, it IS us.

Yes but am I the same person I was when I was a child, because physically all my body has changed and all the cells have been replaced?
If I am still me then it would seem that the body isn't us, or the usness is perpetually changing.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

The question here is the great one of philosophical/theological anthropology (essentially, the doctrine of what a human being is). There are two general schools of philosophical anthropology:

1. The Platonic view: that the human being is a soul trapped in a body; that the body and soul are intrinsically opposed

2. The Aristotelian view: that the human being is a unity of soul and body; that the soul and body together create a "new thing"; that the body and soul are intrinsically united

So your friend's anthropology is, as mark_in_manchester said, essentially an upside-down Platonism. Normal Platonism would see evil/sin as originating in the body, which pulls the soul down towards earthly things, away from heaven/God. (See the Phaedrus dialogue for the best exposition of this.) Her anthropology is that the body, which is incorruptible, is opposed to the evil, sin-bearing soul.

At first sight, therefore, this view seems a little out-there. In fact, there are elements that are part of long-standing Christian traditions, back to people as orthodox as the Cappadocian Fathers, especially Gregory of Nazianzus.

If Christians believe that all creation, seen and unseen, is created by God, it must follow that all creation is intrinsically good (this is borne out by Genesis 1). So, if we posit two "realms" of creation – the material world (that which is perceived by the senses – the body) and the spiritual (that which is not perceived by the senses but is just as real – the soul) – we need to work out which realm sin originated in.

It is quite hard for a Christian to say that sin originated in the material world, if the material world was created by God and is therefore good. If the creatures of the material world are "brute beasts that have no understanding" (as the BCP would have it!), how can they sin? They can have no conception of good or evil, and no moral faculties; they must therefore be without sin. In this case, sin must have originated in the spiritual world. Christian tradition bears witness to this when it says that Lucifer was an angel (a being of the spiritual realm) who sinned. Sin therefore originated in the spiritual realm.

So far, your friend and Christian tradition are hand-in-hand. But here they part company. Christianity would say that the whole of creation – seen and unseen – was marred by sin. So the whole human person – body and soul – is corrupted by sin. Christianity, therefore, takes an essentially Aristotelian view of the human being: the whole of humanity is united, and is united in sinfulness.

A typical Christian viewpoint, therefore, is that, in his Incarnation, Jesus Christ assumed human nature. He assumed both a human body and a human soul. This means that both body and soul are redeemed. Christians have therefore argued through the centuries for a bodily resurrection: at the end of time, we will be raised not just as souls but as bodies as well: as entire human beings.

A particular Christian challenge to your friend's belief is that Christianity would say that neither body nor soul can be despised as the origin of evil/sin/corruption, because they were both assumed by Jesus Christ and therefore redeemed and sanctified.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

quote:
Originally posted by catthefat:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Our body isn't just a thing that we are in, it IS us.

Yes but am I the same person I was when I was a child, because physically all my body has changed and all the cells have been replaced?
If I am still me then it would seem that the body isn't us, or the usness is perpetually changing.

Well, the point about change in the physical body loses some of its potency when we consider how as adults we think, act and relate to the world completely differently than we did as children. Our minds change too. Arguing we are physical doesn't mean I am saying we are unchanging or immutable, just that our physical nature is us just as our spiritual nature is.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by catthefat:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Our body isn't just a thing that we are in, it IS us.

Yes but am I the same person I was when I was a child, because physically all my body has changed and all the cells have been replaced?
If I am still me then it would seem that the body isn't us, or the usness is perpetually changing.

My body, upon hearing certain pieces of music, can still perform very technical pieces of dance that I learned over 20 years ago. How does my body remember this when every neuron and muscle fiber is new?

I don't have an answer, really, I just find it magnificent.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
My body, upon hearing certain pieces of music, can still perform very technical pieces of dance that I learned over 20 years ago. How does my body remember this when every neuron and muscle fiber is new? I don't have an answer, really, I just find it magnificent.

Here's your answer: at least 99% of your neocortical neurons were produced prenatally. The neurons that encode your dancing skills are still there, and many of them will remain till you die. (If you do not practice, your dancing skills will likely fade though. There is rewiring, synaptic plasticity etc.)

[ 20. November 2012, 08:29: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

A typical Christian viewpoint, therefore, is that, in his Incarnation, Jesus Christ assumed human nature. He assumed both a human body and a human soul. This means that both body and soul are redeemed. Christians have therefore argued through the centuries for a bodily resurrection: at the end of time, we will be raised not just as souls but as bodies as well: as entire human beings.

A particular Christian challenge to your friend's belief is that Christianity would say that neither body nor soul can be despised as the origin of evil/sin/corruption, because they were both assumed by Jesus Christ and therefore redeemed and sanctified.

How did he redeem and sanctify them?

God becoming man in the incarnation does not explain how our bodies and our souls are redeemed.

All it does it counter the gnostics that said God couldn't possibly be enfleshed and be man because this world was evil.

Christians say it can happen. Ergo, creation is not evil.

[ 20. November 2012, 11:41: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dorcas Mallorcas:
My friend is a big believer in the idea that one's being on Earth can be fundamentally separated into two parts; the soul (abstract) and the body (concrete). She believes that whenever a person fails at something or does wrong it cannont be blamed on the body, i.e. by the physical parts of herself (heads, shoulders, knees and toes), but must come from the abstract side (anger, jealousy, sadness). Because of this, she thinks that our souls must be flawed or corrupted, thus leading us to sin. She also remembers on many occasions being told that our souls are the ‘pure’ part of our humanity, that they are incorruptible and are the part of us that will join with God after death. Understandably she finds this difficult to resolve. I wondered if anyone would like to share their thoughts on this, and help to shed some light on the situation.

So, essentially, our souls are both bad and good?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'll confess to not having strong opinions on the whole Body-Soul-Spirit issue. The liturgy of the BCP appears to teach the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. So, I preach that at funerals.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dorcas Mallorcas:
Because of this, she thinks that our souls must be flawed or corrupted, thus leading us to sin. She also remembers on many occasions being told that our souls are the ‘pure’ part of our humanity, that they are incorruptible and are the part of us that will join with God after death.

I think that the way to resolve this is to understand that our inner self is not a single thing but come in layers, like an union.

Our outermost self may be quite corrupt, but our innermost self cannot be corrupted. The question is whether we are able to access it.

Strictly speaking, only the innermost, highest, level of our being is the soul. But the word can also refer to everything about us that is not our body, or it can include the body too. A soul is a person.

The idea that the world is evil, or the body is evil, is certainly wrong - but it is understandable to think that way.

Being governed by bodily impulses and worldly considerations is what is normally called being self-centered and materialistic.

The body, the world, and all the impulses and desires connected with them are good in their own right. If they are governed by higher purposes they are useful and necessary, they make everything work well, and they are part of a happy life. But if they are pursued as ends in themselves they obstruct happiness.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0