Soul and Spirit - Is there a difference?

[Historian]

I think that it is easy to accept humans have flesh and spirit. Two components, and the body has become corrupt (for a good reason, if we did not die, it would be very hard for us to even try to keep following God. Death is a great mercy given to us to prevent ourselves from destroying ourselves for certain).

Look at the angels. They have only spirit.

Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.

[Benno]

If it helps at all, I'll always remember meeting an "Assembly of God" chick who took issue at my misuse of the word "soul" when, according to her and her teachers, I meant either "emotions" or "spirit" (I can't remember which) - and I just couldn't understand (to say the least) why anyone would want to split "soul" and "spirit". I was actually kind of stunned that anyone would think of splitting them. I didn't know much outside of my own experiences of God back then!

I guess I can put it into words now - that a human "soul" isn't really "alive" without the "spirit". In other words, what animates a human should be the Holy Spirit. That's the supernatural "norm" for the human soul. So for Catholics, there shouldn't be a need to distingush between "soul" and "spirit", if the soul is in grace.. Since the redemption, the human soul without grace is not a fully "human" soul, if you don't mind that pretty JP2-ish way of saying it. A human soul that isn't spiritual is like a circle that isn't round, and all those kinds of silly metaphors...
:)

In other words, it's a red herring.