On Soul and Spirit (and some more)

JDR

Have You ever ask this questions to yourself? 🤔

➡️ 1. Who am I, and what am I worth? am I really love?

➡️ 2. Where did I come from? How did I exist?

➡️ 3. Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?

➡️ 4. Where am I going when I die? Is death really the end of my life?

Kindly comment your answers to this 4 questions below 👇

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1. "Who am I,"

in most general terms, a man created in God's image, sinner by my acts, Catholic by grace

"and what am I worth? am I really [worth] love?"

No one knows if he's worth love or hate.

2. "Where did I come from? How did I exist?"

Most general terms : God created all, less general and more specific, my parents did sth, and God gave it success and created a soul for my body.

3. "Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?"

God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him.

4. "Where am I going when I die?"

Three places immediately and two ultimately possible, except, judgement is even more immediate.

"Is death really the end of my life?"

Of the life in which one prepares for judgement, yes, of the life after judgement, no.

Michel Snoeck

1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong.

2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it.

3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?

4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong."

Man is an animal insofar as having a body animated by a soul, he is also a spirit, which is either God (which I am not) or God's image.

The soul of man is a spirit, unlike the soul of a tulip or a dog. The spirit of man is a soul, animates a body, unlike the spirit called angel.

Both angels and men are the image of God.

"2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it."

See above.

"3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?"

For two reasons, no.

a) God is three persons, each loving the other.
b) this way God is offering us the one happiness there is, not keeping any surplus happiness for himself.

"4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are."

Not the more, but the better responsibility.

A shrink would perhaps say "more" responsibility whatever direction is automatically better, like planning to wank on a toilet is better than deciding to in the last minute with your trousers on. BUT the latter may be sufficiently involuntary not to be a mortal sin in the concrete case, the former is a mortal sin.

Hence, not more responsibility, but better use of the responsibility one has.

Michel Snoeck

1-2. No. Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I take this literally, it says what it says. Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not.

3. No. If you say: "God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him." then it seems to be ALL for HIM. It reminds of the Ori (as in the series Stargate). Of course, I interpreted the purpose of life very differently.

4. The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be. I fear that this is how the mechanism works. A person who denies or will not see his own responsibility in matters will make him himself go to sleep/becoming less aware.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not."

Catholicism says it is not too.

Soul = form of the body.

"then it seems to be ALL for HIM"

It is.

Michel Snoeck

Thus an egotist... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be."

Exactly, that is the reason why planning to wank is mortally sinful.

"Thus an egotist... "

God has three egos, they are all for each other, not each for itself.

Michel Snoeck

You have to regard exactly what Genesis 2:7 says! Soul is not what man has thought it to be. We got the word from Scripture, we therefore have to define it according what Scripture says it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Soul is not what man has thought it to be."

What do you mean by "man"?

"We got the word from Scripture,"

Even for nephesh, we have it from tradition before there was Scripture.

For psyche and anima we definitely have it before Christianity, likewise probably with Germanic sawol.

Michel Snoeck

I don't care about what you refer to as 'tradition'. I regard how Scripture defines it at Genesis 2:7.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you don't care about tradition, your concern for Scripture is spurious.

Michel Snoeck

Well, I think your concern is spurious. Scripture defined 'soul', that should be enough for anyone... You counter with referring to some, I would say, anonymous 'tradition'. That simply will not do... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How come you even consider St Thomas Aquinas contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture? I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something... 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture?"

Why do you put words in my mouth I did not say.

I do consider he goes into more detail of explanation than this one passage in Scripture, so, all I need is his not contradicting it.

"I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something..."

Following your recommendation, I'll take my reading of Scripture, which agrees with that of St Thomas, over yours.

And you have still not answered the question I considered relevant, namely, why do you believe he contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Sorry, I find he does contradict it. I do not have to explain why or how some person contradicts Scripture or not, I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters. Might I say you have only countered me with an opinion while forwarding your authority carrying the name Thomas Aquinas. You failed to address and factually query my take of Genesis 2:7. 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I gave you St Thomas'.

You have failed to adress how you "find" he contradicts it.

He built his anthropology much on a very close reading of that.

Closer than yours, if you dare pretend to expose his supposed contradiction in detail.

Also, a sentence like this one is simply fraudulent: "I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters."

You want me to change interpreter from Aquinas to you.

Michel Snoeck

Your whole defence mechanism miserably falls because... till date you have not addressed nor properly analyzed Genesis 2:7. You fail to deal with source of Scripture! Instead you try to derail with stating as if I am the interpreter to be followed. That is outright false, I néver stated any such thing! 🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but if you want me to conduct a "proper" analysis of Genesis 2:7 under YOUR supervision, it is obvious you ARE making yourself the interpreter for me, which I refuse.

Again, where did St Thomas contradict the verse?

Oh, by the way, by now you CAN note my analysis of Genesis 2:7 as being = that of St Thomas.

In other words, it is given, if you look it up.

S. Th. I
Question 75. Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul
Article 6. Whether the human soul is incorruptible?
http://newadvent.com/summa/1075.htm#article6

Reply to Objection 1.

Michel Snoeck

You are twisting... all I said was that one has to regard SOURCE, but you REFUSE, you instead want to deal with people (St. Thomas; turned into Saint by 'man' nót God!)

I said it before, I care very little about your authorities and interpreters, I regard SOURCE... 🧐

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think it is OK to use Strong's lexica for Bible Hebrew or Bible Greek, I think it is OK to use Catholic commentary.

Where is the difference, except that you refuse to deal with what I already said and refuse to respect my methodology?

You are not in fact asking me to VERBALLY call you "father" or master, but you ARE asking me to do so in the very sense that is relevant to what Christ said, namely you are proposing yourself as a mentor for me.

The one twisting things is you;

A man who can be provoking someone about "your defense mechanism" deserved to be blocked and Michel Snoeck is blocked now.

I left Helgon.net to avoid the hex of one masonic sympathising and discordian member, and it will probably mean leaving this group, I prefer avoiding the analyses of Snoeck, whether of me or of Bible.

He babbled about "throughout history" without checking what St Thomas said and what Catholic scholasticism says.