What is the right definition of immortal?
Something which is naturally uncorruptible is immortal.
I didnt say so.
So you say that you disapproved Aquinas immortality of the soul, yet you admit that Aquinas never said that an immortal soul is unsustained, which is the crux of your argument?
Well, if you are attempting to disprove Aquinas’ immortality of the soul, you’d have to use his definition. Otherwise you’d be equivocating and your argument would be a strawman.
That doesn’t resolve the problem. There are two problems in here: 1) God either hold the rational soul directly or inderectly. At the end He is the sustainer and therefore the rational soul is not immortal. 2) What does holding rational soul through holding natural laws ever mean? Do you mean that the soul’s act is coverned by any system of laws?
I am saying that his arument on immortality of the rational soul which is based on immateriality of the soul does not have any relevance if he accept that everything is sustained by God. In simple word, anything as far as God holds it, exists.
And what is his definition?
His definition would be that an immortal souls nature is not to be corrupted, unlike the body. The body ages and dies. The soul does not.
Actually, bodies nature also doesn’t change yet the body decays.
What do you mean with body dies? What do you mean with the soul doesnt die?
Shouldn’t we distinguish between immortal meaning incorruptible and everlasting meaning lasts forever. Incorruptible not necessarily meaning everlasting. Everlasting meaning God is incapable, due to his nature or due to the nature of souls he created, of destroying saved souls. Perhaps it would be a contradicton to do so similar to whether God can create something so heavy he can’t lift it, and thus wouldn’t violate the a God being all powerful attribute. Just speculation.
No he does not. We do not know anything about the souls of animals, it is not defined, so this is an argument that cannot be used.
I am eternal, I will live eternally, at present, I am in the earth life stage, when I die, I will by the grace of God, be either in Purgatory or Heaven.
God sustains everyone and everything, even this moment in which you are reading what I am writing in reply.
What do you mean? Bodies are constantly changing in nature.
That’s a good question. I’d say ‘death’ would be to lose it’s nature. That’s why Adam ‘died’ after the fall - he lost his unfallen nature. I can’t really look it up right now, but maybe someone else has a more rigorous definition?
Could we please only stick to two words, mortal and immortal (immortal means that it doesn’t die (such as God) under any circumstances, opposite to mortal which means that it dies (the rational soul for example, if God doesnt sustain it))?
Animals according to Aquinas doesn’t have rational soul so they are mortal. Of course God can sustain anything such as animal soul after their death. I ,however, dont understand what is the point of Aquinas about the rational soul and its immortality.
So you are mortal, I mean your soul would perish if God doesnt sustain it? I know that God will keep you alive for eternity.
Any change in the body is according to natural laws. That include mutation and decaying.
I will be waiting too.
Aquinas is a great saint, one that people spend a very long time studying. He was wrong about some things. The Church has not defined animal souls. Any saint can expound on his or her personal view. As long as there is nothing contrary to the Church, that person will be canonised. If Aquinas had said something contrary, he would not be a saint.
This does not make it something we adhere to unless it is taken up as doctrine or discipline or dogma.
My entire being would perish, as would yours, if God did not sustain it. God will keep you alive for eternity also. God loves us and has promised this. This entire world would perish if God stopped sustaining it.
Our souls are forever, our bodies are forever, they are resurrected. We would not be here if not thought of and sustained by God so really, I think your argument is circular.
I am wondering that what point he was trying to make. If the rational soul is immortal because it is immaterial then obviously doesnt perish under any circumstances. Saying that the rational soul also do need a sustainer then does make any sense to me since it means that the rational soul is mortal.
I don’t think so. I am making an important point. What is the point of Aquinas about the rational soul being immaterial?
Modern Catholic Dictionary:
IMMORTALITY. Freedom from death or the capacity to decay and disintegrate. Absolute immortality is possessed by God alone, who has no body and whose spirit is eternal by essence. He cannot not exist; he always has been and must be. Natural immortality belongs to all spiritual beings, namely the angels and human souls, who are created indeed and therefore begin, but since they are simple by nature and have no parts, they will not die, although absolutely speaking, they could be annihilated by an act of God. Gratuitous immortality is a special grace, given originally by God to the ancestors of the human race and restored by Christ as a promise after the last day. It means freedom from bodily death and from separation of the soul from the human body.
God sustains material parts in existence even as he allows them, as composites, to be dissoluble. God gives these things there own causality. They are not mere occurrences.
The rational soul is sustained by God. Therefore, they would vanish if it is not sustained. So there is no need for an act of annihilation.