Once I let go, it's like it never was there. A mental exercise that doesn't even seem to put a notch on what I feel inside. It is that incredible divide that always amazes me. But, I have to admit that A makes some good points, as always, even though he would have us believe that he is but a farmer with mud covered boots. And, of course, there is nothing simple about you Kolo either. But, you know how it is, the more complex the minds, the simpler the soul, and I mean that in a positive sense.
I would like to add a comment on A's mention of Aristotelian philosophy. If Aristotelian philosophy defines Latin Catholicism, then the soul would not be immortal if I understand it correctly. Aristotelian way of thinking is that the soul is here and now and as long you or something exists, the soul exists. Thus a match has a 'soul' in that it exists as a match and only for one purpose — to produce fire. Once a match is used, and is burnt, it is no longer a match; it ceases to exist as a match. Thus a human at the moment of death ceases to be that curious combination of animal and angelic.
Platonism, on the other hand, thought of essence as something that cannot be changed; we never cease to be human, even when we die. Orthodoxy specifically prohibits cremation for that purpose, and the universal idea of respecting even dead humans is a reflection of that thinking.
A strikes the bullseye when he says that the difference in our way of thinking is that we are not being returned to the impersonal One. Christianity differs from other religions in that we not only interact with God's energies but through Christ makes it possible for the ineffable God to become visible and close to us on our level; a filter or descrambler if you will between the uncreated and the created.
I would also agree that perhaps Kailomors sometimes uses unfortunate choices for his words, but the idea is that the a human being (a living soul as mentioned in Gen 2:7) dies, but it is clear that the soul, as the essence, is destined to spend eternity either with or without God. And in that, K says it simple and clear: "spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God."
How the medieval Schoolmen used Aristotle to explain Christian theology is a complicated question. What they took most from Aristotle was logic and dialectic method. They claimed to use logic to prove the truth of Revelation.
The Scholastics got their Aristotle from Muslim Spain--Greek translated into Arabic translated into Latin. They regrarded the Muslim Averroes as the greatest commentator and interpreter of Aristotle. Whether he understood Aristotle correctly or not, he affirmed an impersonal immortality of the soul.
By the Renaissance the arguments of the mortality or immortality of the soul reached such a pitch, that the Lateran Council of 1512 established the immortality of the soul as a dogma of the Church.
But there is another side to the argument. If your Christianity is informed significantly by considerations of pneumatology and eschatology, then I think you have to go the other way and say that the soul is created mortal and only receives its immortality at the Resurrection of the dead when it is reunited with the body.