He argues that the current emphasis on the resurrection of the body is incoherent without the idea that the soul is immortal — «belief in the resurrection of the body
without the immortality of the soul... fails to secure the resurrection of the same person» (p. 115).
This leads naturally to the fourth and final component of the idea of pure sacrifice: the ontological vision which sees Being
without immortality of the soul or resurrection of the body.
Not exact matches
The real task is to explain the
immortality of the whole person
without minimizing the value
of the body dimension by postponing its inclusion or presenting it as an eventual addition to the real person, the
soul.
As Whitehead clearly states, the question
of the
immortality of the
soul is the question whether this regnant society can continue to persist
without its supporting subordinate societies; for reasons such as this I have referred to this regnant society as being the analogue
of the traditional concept
of soul.
The instrument may perish but the tune survives and, as it is often argued by those who would attempt to bring «
immortality of the
soul» and some residual meaning
of «resurrection'together into a single conception, that tune might very well be played on another instrument if one does not accept the idea that tunes can exist, so to say,
without any expression through some instrumentality.
He was accepting the
immortality of the
soul; but he was also urging that a mere
soul,
without a body
of some kind, did not constitute the genuine and complete human person.
Without denying this objective
immortality, David Griffin has examined the possibility
of subjective survival more positively, 4 and John Cobb has speculated about the possible interpenetration
of such
souls in the hereafter in ways that overcome their possible self - centeredness.5 Marjorie Suchocki has also explored ways in which we may live on in God which are quite different from these conceptions
of the
immortality of the
soul.6