Why would you suggest that? The souls of the very first humans were united to their bodies, even though they did not have original sin. — aletheist

It could be that because of original sin, we cannot have separate existence of the soul, separate from the body, and many believe that the separate existence of the soul is required for eternal life. Notice that we get redemption through Christ, and Christ has promised eternal life.

Sure, but that involves some equivocation on what we mean by "good" and "evil." We all bear the image of God, which makes us good; but that image is corrupted in all of us, which makes us evil. — aletheist

So where's the equivocation? By the fact that we are beings which act of free will, means that we are good. By the fact that our decisions, and acts are somewhat deficient means that we are evil. As Aquinas explained in the quote, human beings exist as a multiplicity. In some aspects we are good, and in others we are bad. Likewise in our acts, they also have a multiplicity of elements, in some aspects they are good, in others they are bad.

I didn't say "actualization", don't misquote me. I said "actuality". — Metaphysician Undercover

I never intended to misquote you.

You are simply trying to dismiss the dualist premise by saying that all actualities are necessarily activities, and therefore time dependent. The dualist doesn't believe that all actualities are time dependent, that's how we can talk about eternal things. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm not. I'm talking about existing things. For them to exist, they have to become actualized, according to you, that is, they must become "informed," yes? If so, then how is that process not in time?

There is much that remains unknown to human beings, Why would you think that admitting so much is a "cop out"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you're still committed to the proposition in question, and would have me be as well. In the face of ignorance, explain to me why one ought not to withhold judgment entirely.

Would you prefer to pretend that human beings know all there is to know? — Metaphysician Undercover

The irony is that this is what it seems you're doing: pretending that there is an answer to the contradiction I raised, even though you haven't provided one.

If logic indicates that it is possible that there is something outside of time, why not accept this as a real possibility, instead of closing your mind to what logic indicates? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a straw man. I'm talking about God's creating things. I am open to the possibility that something exists outside of time. I am skeptical of the idea that this something, if it is God, can create anything.

If you think that choosing presupposes time, then you do not understand the nature of immaterial existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, really? Then explain the following remarks you make:

"Prior to creation, God did not have to create."
"When an individual sees X as good, one acts on that."
"It is only after the act occurs that we can say that the individual saw X as good."
"It is the "seeing X as good" which causes the act."

No, I'm not. I'm talking about existing things. For them to exist, they have to become actualized, according to you, that is, they must become "informed," yes? If so, then how is that process not in time? — Thorongil

I'm not following this at all what do you mean by "informed"? If you mean instilled with a form, then the form must exist prior to the act of informing. Don't you agree?

Oh, really? Then explain the following remarks you make:

"Prior to creation, God did not have to create."
"When an individual sees X as good, one acts on that."
"It is only after the act occurs that we can say that the individual saw X as good."
"It is the "seeing X as good" which causes the act." — Thorongil

Again, I don't follow your point. Could you clarify, what are you asking for?

The idea that God is good is an anthropomorphic idea, based on what human beings value as good. — Marchesk

Absolutely. The less human God is, the more He is just some undiscovered aspect of nature. God is not only necessarily anthropomorphic but humanity's most flattering mirror. A non-human demiurge might as well be a black box. We'd have to analyze him like a newly discovered particle.

But the idea that God is the kind of being who can appear on a hypothetical chariot - I suppose it would be a helicopter nowadays - and command malefactors to 'cease and desist' is a caricature of the idea. God is not a movie director, or a super-hero, or even a super-parent. I'm sure the allegory of 'father' is just that - an allegory. — Wayfarer

I wonder though if it's only a caricature in retrospect. Isn't water still blessed and aren't magic prayer handkerchief's still for sale out there? I would never deny the existence of a sophisticated religious tradition running parallel to the vividly supernatural, but I think magic/miracle/providence and personal immortality are what many want and understand themselves to get from religion. Of course there's also the cosmic justice of Heaven and Hell involved, so that no sinner goes unpunished and no hero unrewarded, which does very much feel like the last act appearance of the hero. When I was exposed to Catholicism as a child, no one said "but this is just an analogy." ("There's an invisible man who burns people in fire forever and ever...and he had a son...and we drink his bood...and we go in the box and the tell the old man through the screen how bad of a boy we've been...and there's Bingo in the basement on Saturday night...")