Are souls born?

[znr]

The distinction isn't being made here...I don't need to believe how or why or when my soul was created to believe that I'm going to be present with God at some point after I die. The mechanics of it, I have no deeper insight, it just doesn't matter to me at this point.

If you are not sure what you believe about a soul, are you sure about what you believe happens to it when you die?

 

[St_Worm2]

Here you go David.

Quoted from Dr William Lane Craig:

"First and foremost, the causal premiss is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Finally, the first premiss is constantly confirmed in our experience, which provides atheists who are scientific naturalists with the strongest of motivations to accept it.

Read more: Causal Premiss of the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith

Hi Gladius, I can understand why you would be confused about Craig's position if you simply read that paragraph. Read on (as they say) because this man has produced a lifetime of published articles and books written in defense of "creatio ex nihilo". Here is the paragraph Craig wrote following the one you posited for us above:

I think that the principle ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes) is as certain as anything in philosophy and that no rational person sincerely doubts it. But this principle does not in any way contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), as the medieval thinkers who espoused both realized. For only in the case of creation is there a cause which brings the relevant object into being.
​

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

 

[juvenissun]

It's easy. I believe what I believe, but I'm not sure what I believe (about souls and when they're born) is right. I'd like to think I was assigned a life; that would be far more interesting to me, having been conscious prior to being in a human body. But I don't think about it...it's not required by God IMO. Im also, I'm ducking now, not a pro lifer in the political expected sense. So...I don't know, I see suffering people and practical needs as more important than being certain of the explicit details on when souls are born as a priority. To be more blunt, what makes me Christian is being a follower of Christ, not what I believe philosophically / theologically.

A kid is not required to attend college. But will you send your kid to college? Why?

 

[juvenissun]

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,
(We believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth)

et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
(and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord)

qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
(who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary)

passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
(suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried)

descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
(descended into the depths, on the third day rose from the dead)

ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
(ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father Almighty)

inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
(from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead)

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
(We believe in the Holy Spirit)

sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam,
(the holy universal Church)

sanctorum communionem,
(the communion of saints)

remissionem peccatorum,
(the forgiveness of sin)

carnis resurrectionem,
(resurrection of the flesh)

vitam aeternam.
(life eternal)

Amen.
(Amen)

The body rises.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't see a point in all these.

A different new body, rises.

Who else except Christians has this idea?

 

[St_Worm2]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

God creates "out of nothing"​

296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely "out of nothing": (285)​

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.
​

The RCC has much more to say about this, even in the same official church Catechism that the above is excerpted from. Let me know if you would like to read more and I will post it.

Creatio Ex Nihilo is the sole position taken by orthodox Christianity concerning the origin of the universe. I believe this position was finally made "official" in 1215 AD by the Fourth Lateran Council affirming that:

"[God] from the beginning of time made at once out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."
​

Yours and His,
David

 

[juvenissun]

As far as my thoughts on the definition of "the soul" goes, it's just personal. I think biblically speaking the idea of "the soul" is rather vague. The Hebrew word is nephesh, such as in Genesis 2 when God breathes into the lump of dirt and the text says it became a nephesh, or "living being". Nephesh is linked to the concept of breath and breathing.

Interestingly that's also the basic meaning of the Greek psuche, breath. So in the ancient mind that critical distinction between a living thing and a corpse is that it breathes, it has breath. It's that vital breath that is, fundamentally "the soul".

So I'd argue that is generally how the various authors of the biblical texts would have perceived the idea of "the soul". The modern idea of the ghost in the shell is largely a product of Platonism.

As far as the resurrection of the body goes, that is basic orthodox Christian teaching universally taught by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants. Up until rather recently in history, the last hundred or two hundred years, this was just accepted as theological reality. The Christian hope of eternal life wasn't of floating up to a place called "heaven" to spend eternity as a harp-strumming ethereal whisp; but was that the body, this flesh-and-bone solid matter, would rise up even as Jesus rose up. In fact in 1 Corinthians St. Paul goes so far as to say that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Jesus Himself isn't raised up, because Jesus' resurrection and the future resurrection of the dead are, essentially, bound up in the same reality.

A decayed/cremated body is raised up all the same. It is in fact this hope that those who having died and long turned to dust in the earth would rise again that is the essence of the resurrection hope. It's the reason why both Jews and Christians (and later Muslims) have historically buried their dead, out of a belief of the resurrection of the dead. Burial and preservation of the body is rooted in the belief that the body matters, and will matter ultimately in the end.

-CryptoLutheran

Clay --> animals.
Clay + breath --> human.

The difference is obvious. And that is the reason to believe the soul is not the same as the body.

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't understand how knowing when my soul was conceived has any connection to how to live life on earth.

Hi ZNR, I think the orthodox position is important for us to understand because the truth of it stands in sharp contrast to others' "truths" concerning creation. The Latter Day Saints, for instance, believe that the universe, space/time/matter/energy, is just like God in the sense that it too exists from, "everlasting to everlasting". And this, according to their faith, is specifically true of our souls as the LDS also teach that, like God, our souls (each and every one of them) are w/o beginning or end ..

As you can imagine, persuading adherents of the Mormon faith to accept the fact that they are truly, "Gods in the making", becomes considerably easier if the faithful can be convinced that they, like God, are eternal beings.

Is knowing this more important that feeding/clothing the poor, defending the innocent, or bringing the light of the Gospel to those living "in darkness". Hardly! But stuff like this can be important to know at times (and it really doesn't have to be either/or, does it .. ).

God bless! (Numbers 6:24-26)

Yours and His,
David

 

[Gladius]

Hi Gladius, I can understand why you would be confused about Craig's position if you simply read that paragraph. Read on (as they say) because this man has produced a lifetime of published articles and books written in defense of "creatio ex nihilo". Here is the paragraph Craig wrote following the one you posited for us above:

I think that the principle ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes) is as certain as anything in philosophy and that no rational person sincerely doubts it. But this principle does not in any way contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), as the medieval thinkers who espoused both realized. For only in the case of creation is there a cause which brings the relevant object into being.
​

--David

I stand corrected. Up is down and down is up.

 

[St_Worm2]

I stand corrected. Up is down and down is up.

Context, at times my friend, is everything ..

You are right (up is down and down is up ... or so it appears), the paragraph I posited clearly shows that Dr. Craig believes "ex nihilo nihil fit" is the unassailable truth, but he says the same in the following sentence of "creatio ex nihilo" ..

However, if you read the entire Q & A, his meaning becomes plain (enough). And it is certainly easier from the get-go if you understand his presupposition (something I would know but you, most likely, would not).

Yours and His,
David

 

[Received]

I don't believe "the soul" is some sort of ghost in the shell. I don't have an ethereal something-or-ther floating around in my body that is the "real me". I am this body of matter.

The soul, instead, is the animating principle. That is a living, breathing thing has soul. It's the breath of life as it were.

Now do I believe that at death some part of me or my identity is preserved, with God, consciously? Yes. We could call that the soul going to heaven if we want I suppose. But it's not some ghost leaving its body-shell.

I am me, I am this organism of breath, thought, matter. I am these genetic sequences that make up me. I'm not a whispy something simply inhabiting this body, i am a full fledged flesh-and-blood human person. There was no me until two gametes met and produced a zygote. And the only way that I exist after my own death is by God making it so, until the future resurrection of the dead. Which is the Christian hope.

It could be said that Christians believe in the immortality of the soul I suppose, but more importantly and more truthfully Christians believe in the resurrection and immortality of the body. The carnis resurrectionem mentioned in the Apostles' Creed.

-CryptoLutheran

What he said. Every word.

I'd only add that, reasoning from this, the soul is, basically, the "body" of God, given that it occupies all of time and space (and transcends it), which makes our soul one with God. Hence Eckhart could say that the same eye through which I see God is the same eye through which he sees me.

 

[znr]

This has nothing to do with the original thought I expressed. I'm getting weary of your games.

A kid is not required to attend college. But will you send your kid to college? Why?

 

[juvenissun]

This has nothing to do with the original thought I expressed. I'm getting weary of your games.

You do not see the analogy.

You do not need to consider the origin of soul.
But if you do, you will be better off.

 

[znr]

I see the analogy and I have nothing against deep debate / discussion and nothing against higher education. I'm fine exactly where I'm at. Also, we were not discussing origin of souls but rather the point of spending a lot of time speculating endlessly. You think doing so matters and I don't.

You do not see the analogy.

You do not need to consider the origin of soul.
But if you do, you will be better off.

 

[juvenissun]

I see the analogy and I have nothing against deep debate / discussion and nothing against higher education. I'm fine exactly where I'm at. Also, we were not discussing origin of souls but rather the point of spending a lot of time speculating endlessly. You think doing so matters and I don't.

Is the OP trying to talk about the origin of soul?
If so, why are you in this thread?

 

[znr]

I answered the ops question. Then you replied to me and I replied back to your posts specifically. Stop trying to troll me. We're done here.

Is the OP trying to talk about the origin of soul?
If so, why are you in this thread?

 

[juvenissun]

I answered the ops question. Then you replied to me and I replied back to your posts specifically. Stop trying to troll me. We're done here.

OK, if you said so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see a point in all these.

I was emphasizing where the Creed says there is the resurrection of the body, specifically that in the original Latin of the Apostles' Creed is reads "carnis resurrectionem" -- the resurrection of flesh. It is a material, physical resurrection of this material body of flesh.

A different new body, rises.

That's the part that bothers me. By this are you suggesting that there is no resurrection of the body, that instead God simply makes a new body to house the soul?

Because that simply doesn't jive with what Christianity has, quite literally, always taught. Our resurrection at the end is as Christ's was. Whatever we believe about Christ's resurrection is true of ours. If Christ rose bodily--the same body--from the dead then the same is true of our own resurrection because it is the same resurrection. That's the whole point of resurrection.

Who else except Christians has this idea?

I have no idea, as I'm not sure I know what you mean. Both Judaism and Islam teach the resurrection of the body, Christianity has a concept of resurrection because it was first in Judaism. But in Christianity resurrection isn't on the sidelines of religion, it is instead the central thesis of the Christian religion.

The ancient Egyptians believed that the dead would need their bodies in the afterlife.

Zorastrianism taught a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment.

But again, I don't know what you mean when you say that a new and different body rises, since I don't know how it can rise unless it is first that thing that was laid down. Otherwise the word "resurrection" loses at least some of its meaning, and perhaps ultimately becomes meaningless.

Christianity is the religion of bodily resurrection because it places resurrection as the center and heart of the religion. Christians are, as John Paul II said, "Easter people". At the heart of our religion is that Jesus Christ did not stay dead, but was raised up from the dead, and because Christ is raised from the dead we are confident and believe that death doesn't get the final word, and that we too, by the promise of God in Christ, shall be raised from the dead even as Christ was raised from the dead. To everlasting life in the world to come.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

I was emphasizing where the Creed says there is the resurrection of the body, specifically that in the original Latin of the Apostles' Creed is reads "carnis resurrectionem" -- the resurrection of flesh. It is a material, physical resurrection of this material body of flesh.

That's the part that bothers me. By this are you suggesting that there is no resurrection of the body, that instead God simply makes a new body to house the soul?

Because that simply doesn't jive with what Christianity has, quite literally, always taught. Our resurrection at the end is as Christ's was. Whatever we believe about Christ's resurrection is true of ours. If Christ rose bodily--the same body--from the dead then the same is true of our own resurrection because it is the same resurrection. That's the whole point of resurrection.



I have no idea, as I'm not sure I know what you mean. Both Judaism and Islam teach the resurrection of the body, Christianity has a concept of resurrection because it was first in Judaism. But in Christianity resurrection isn't on the sidelines of religion, it is instead the central thesis of the Christian religion.

The ancient Egyptians believed that the dead would need their bodies in the afterlife.

Zorastrianism taught a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment.

But again, I don't know what you mean when you say that a new and different body rises, since I don't know how it can rise unless it is first that thing that was laid down. Otherwise the word "resurrection" loses at least some of its meaning, and perhaps ultimately becomes meaningless.

Christianity is the religion of bodily resurrection because it places resurrection as the center and heart of the religion. Christians are, as John Paul II said, "Easter people". At the heart of our religion is that Jesus Christ did not stay dead, but was raised up from the dead, and because Christ is raised from the dead we are confident and believe that death doesn't get the final word, and that we too, by the promise of God in Christ, shall be raised from the dead even as Christ was raised from the dead. To everlasting life in the world to come.

-CryptoLutheran

Our resurrected body HAS TO BE different from our current one for many obvious reasons.

One of the simple reason is: the physiology has to be totally different.

Who says the resurrected body of the Christ is His old flesh? Absolutely wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

But again, I don't know what you mean when you say that a new and different body rises, since I don't know how it can rise unless it is first that thing that was laid down. Otherwise the word "resurrection" loses at least some of its meaning, and perhaps ultimately becomes meaningless.


-CryptoLutheran

Resurrection is an action. It has nothing to do with the material. It could be the same body, or it could be a body of any different nature.

A fictional example: A person died by a vampire bit. The person resurrected as a new vampire.