2,843 reputation
41859
bio website
location Taiwan
age
visits member for 3 years, 9 months
seen 4 hours ago

I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.


Apr
10
accepted Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary
Apr
10
comment Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary
My question was "... after assumption of Mary", not "... after the earliest reference to the assumption of Mary".
Apr
10
asked Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary
Apr
8
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
@BrianHitchcock - So what about the souls of the martyred ones that John saw under the alter in Rev 6:9? Do you mean to say that they are the spirits that had already been somehow re-united with their bodies by that time? John says specifically that he saw souls.
Apr
7
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(2) In other words, the existence of a function and the manifestation of that function are two different things – if function hasn’t been manifested it doesn’t mean that the function does not exist. However, what St. Thomas says is basically this: because the soul is not united with the body (= is not yet manifested) it doesn’t exist. I don’t see his logic here.
Apr
7
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(1) “But I think he's talking about Adam's creation, not ours. Adam was created fully functional” – Yes. That’s exactly what I mean. Adam was created fully functional, which means that the function of being fruitful and multiplying was in him as soon as he was created. However, it doesn’t mean that he started being fruitful and multiplying right at the moment of his creation – at least not before God said “be fruitful and multiply”.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
Sorry, I didn't understand your point. What do you mean?
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(4) A more simple example – human lungs. As we know, humans only start using their lungs at the moment of their birth and the first exposure to the air. While the baby is still inside of mother’s womb, it doesn’t yet breathe using lungs. So, you could tell that lungs of a human come into the state of "natural perfection" at the moment when he starts to breathe. However, how does it prove that before the human baby is born it doesn’t already have lungs?
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(3) You could tell that their ability for childbearing came into the state of its "natural perfection" when they gave a birth to their first child, but does it really mean that they only acquired this ability at the very moment of giving a birth? I guess they already had this ability in them when they were created. For sure, when God was commanding them to be fruitful and multiply, they already had this ability in them, otherwise it would’ve been rather unfair for God to command them to do something that they weren’t naturally able to do.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(2) After all, there were many things pertaining to the human nature that were not immediately in the state of their "natural perfection" right at the moment of creation. Take or example humans’ ability for childbearing. Humans did not start giving birth to other humans right after they were created. In fact, it even took God to tell them “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” before they could give a birth to their first child.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(1) I've re-read your link number of times, but still didn't get the logic there. For example, this: "Now the soul, as a part of human nature, has its natural perfection only as united to the body. Therefore it would have been unfitting for the soul to be created without the body". I don't get this logic. How does the fact that the soul gets its "natural perfection" only as united to the body proves that it was not created without a body first?
Apr
5
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
"In any event, our souls are created with our bodies in our mothers womb" - How do we know that?
Mar
25
awarded  Popular Question
Mar
20
revised Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
added 14 characters in body
Mar
20
revised Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
added 3 characters in body
Mar
20
asked Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
Mar
20
awarded  Notable Question
Mar
19
comment At what moment did Eve begin to sin?
@gideonmarx - "The sin, after all, started when Eve created the first religious act, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it" She invented a law while God only said, "you shall not eat"" - :) Then, we probably still need to hold Adam responsible for that as God's words must have been re-spoken to Eve by Adam - when God was saying these words to him Eve was not yet in existence.
Mar
18
asked At what moment did Eve begin to sin?
Mar
1
comment Has the distinction of the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ been established?
@AdithiaKusno – What do you mean by passible/impassible?