Thanks....I wanted to make a couple more points about that, by the way, so I will make them to you<VBG>.....
Traditionally, the reason that the soul is considered to be naturally immortal is that there is nothing to decompose, since it is supposed to be a singular substance, rather than a mechanism. Now, since God is considered to sustain every creature by a continuous will that each exists, if He withdrew that support, the soul would be extinguished. As a creature, it is ultimately perishable. Only God is imperishable.
However, man is contrasted with the angels by being a composite being, soul and body, rather than only spirit. Thus, it is possible that without the completion of the body, as a conduit for interaction with the world, the soul falls into a kind of dormancy after death, perhaps like sleep. If, on the other hand, it retains consciousness, it should have a sense of incompleteness, lacking a body, and nostalgia for the life that has passed. This is more or less the way that Jews conceived of Sheol, and the Greeks of Hades, and the reason that redemption was originally conceived of by Jews and Christians alike as Resurrection, a return of the soul to an incorruptible body at the end of this world.(Of course, redemption for the Jews was dependent on following the Torah, including the means provided to seek mercy).
In the meantime, something had to be done with the redeemed, and Sheol was not seen as a fitting place for them to wait things out, so they were conceived of as taken up to Heaven, to delight in the glory of God. Not only was residence in Sheol comparatively dismal, but one was subject to punishment for sin, to make things even less pleasant. Thus, in some rudimentary form, the conception of Hell developed.
Early on, the Church developed the idea of Purgatory, not only to ensure that the demands of justice were satisfied, and one paid something for one's own sins, but more importantly because even the redeemed were generally not fit to stand in the presence of God, and needed to be purged of the stain of sin.
Now, no one per se deserves Heaven, not even the innocent. If Sheol would be the natural habitat, as it were, of the soul after death, it may be that the innocent deserve a "version" that is free of longing and regret, and dwells on happier recollections, or the pursuit of intellectual pleasures. St. Augustine, for example, believed that unbaptized babies went to Hell, but advanced the idea that the portion of Hell they went to was Limbo, where there was no torment, and which could be construed as the more acceptable level of Sheol. Dante, following pre-existing conceptions, elaborates a whole hierarchy of Hell, where the unredeemed righteous, such as Socrates, live in a sort of philosopher's paradise lit by the sun of Reason, which is inferior to the glory of God.
The Fall has to, then, be looked at in this context. In the first place, Adam and Eve forfeited various privileges: they lost their physical incorruptibility, and became subject to decay; they lost their intimacy with God; and they were expelled from Paradise. Not only were these things taken from them, but from their progeny. However, since they were privileges, it cannot be unjust to withdraw them, even from the innocent parties that follow.
In the second place, by giving up physical incorruptibility, they gave up the harmony of drives and instincts with reason, and made themselves and their descendants more prone to sin. Thus far, the rabbinical and Christian understanding of the matter pretty much coincides.
Where Christianity diverges is in saying that none are truly innocent, even those we would not ordinarily hold accountable, like infants. If we conceive this in terms of Purgation, it makes sense: even an infant is a monster of egotism, and not fit to stand in the presence of God, however little it can be blamed for that condition.
However, there seems to be an imputed guilt that is stronger than that, and which is a stumbling block to a lot of people. In the ancient world, the idea of ancestral guilt made much more sense, since there was not a sharp distinction between the individual and the clan. As part of the clan, one shared in its assets and liabilities, including blessings and curses, honors and disgraces, noble acts and sins. It was considered fair because it could go either way: one might suffer ancestral guilt, but one might also prosper because an ancestor was virtuous.
Of course, in one way it is buttressed by common sense: families do get mired in dysfunction, other families do perpetuate a healthier home environment, sometimes for generations.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer a few reflections on the disposition of the soul as understood by Judaism and Christianity........ |
