Thread: What historical information could make you lose faith? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028805

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
CNN reports that the Mormon church has quietly published some articles on its website addressing some historical controversies in the church. The one making waves is an admission that Joseph Smith had 30-40 wives in total, including at least one teenager and several who were already married to other men. Also that his first wife was not happy with it and did not consent to most of them, contrary to previous claims. The article is here.

The reaction among Mormons seems to be mostly that A) they kind of already knew this and B) they're still going to stay part of the LDS church.

To critics of the church it confirms some of their accusations - that Joseph Smith invented polygamy to indulge in his own desires, that the church lied and covered up the truth about its early history.

It makes me wonder what I would have to learn about the founders of Christianity (or a specific denomination) that would cause me to lose my faith. Does it matter that Christianity's founders lived 2000 years ago, while Joseph Smith's behavior was out of line with contemporary standards in the 1800s when he engaged in these actions? I'd like to think that it does - but then I wonder if it's just the same sort of rationalization that Mormons are doing.

So - is there anything you could learn (or that the church could reveal) that would make you lose faith?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

So - is there anything you could learn (or that the church could reveal) that would make you lose faith?

Faith in what? The Church? I don't have any faith in the Church anyway.

In God? No, I don't think so, I have tried to lose my faith in God, tried hard and not succeeded.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Faith in what? The Church?

That depends on one's denomination I suppose. For an RC loss of faith in their church might be equivalent to loss of faith in Christianity entirely.

It could be either.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have tried to lose my faith in God, tried hard and not succeeded.

My best friend, a Jew whose parents escaped Nazi Germany, cannot reconcile God and the Holocaust.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
It seems right that there has to be some falsification criteria, otherwise one falls foul of Antony Flew's critique. For me, I would take Paul's view as espoused in 1 Corinthians 15:
quote:
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
If Jesus remains dead, then one is left with a choice: 1) Jesus is not, and never was, God incarnate; or 2) Nietzsche was right and God is dead. If either of these is right, then there may be some remnant of a faith left, but I couldn't call it christianity.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I suppose that if there were some definitive proof - purely a hypothetical, since I don't think there could be - that Jesus of Nazareth never lived (i.e., is pure mythology), it would make my sacramental Christianity rather pointless, as well as more broadly my prayer life as a Christian. What it wouldn't do, however, is change my intellectual subscription to theism itself, in terms of believing in an ultimate source possessing agency that gives rise to all that is. I suppose I would quit trying, though, to commune with this Ground of Being via any sort of faith in, or prayer to, a God that can at all be apprehended at a personal level. But who knows?

Also, it wouldn't affect my belief in the value of much of the teaching and vision put forth in the New Testament.

[ 11. November 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If they found the grave of Jesus of Nazareth with his remains in it and proof positive that this was the Jesus of the Gospels.

Then we'd be finished.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gamaliel: If they found the grave of Jesus of Nazareth with his remains in it and proof positive that this was the Jesus of the Gospels.

Then we'd be finished.

Why?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If they found the grave of Jesus of Nazareth with his remains in it and proof positive that this was the Jesus of the Gospels.

Then we'd be finished.

Or some theologians would be challenged by this proof that Jesus actually existed.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't know how you'd be able to convince the world that this 'proof' wasn't simply some sort of Illuminati con.

Most of us have to take the word of specialists when it comes to all sorts of things, but religion is perhaps resistant to being killed in this way. It usually just transforms itself gradually into something else.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Or some theologians would be challenged by this proof that Jesus actually existed.

HAH! What's sad is that I can see that actually happening in such a situation...

I might as well throw my thoughts in, since I started the discussion. What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

- evidence that the Apostles never themselves believed in the Resurrection (i.e. they were selling what they knew to be a scam)

I think I could find a way around most anything else. But the first would mean what I believe about Jesus isn't true, and the second would mean that the church is based on a lie that invalidates it entirely.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Jews have wrestled with similar issues from time to time. The way there is little archaeological proof of King David, that kind of thing.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

- evidence that the Apostles never themselves believed in the Resurrection (i.e. they were selling what they knew to be a scam)

I think I could find a way around most anything else. But the first would mean what I believe about Jesus isn't true, and the second would mean that the church is based on a lie that invalidates it entirely.

That sums it up for me, seekingsister.

I don't believe the apostles were peddling a scam because they don't appear to have been getting what I would associate with scammers: money, chicks and worldly power. It's why I have zero use for Muhammad and what he was peddling. That, and Matthew being one of them because he was a tax collector. I can't think of anything short of a miracle that would want the others to do anything with him except have a fist fight.
 
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on :
 
Evidence of Jesus' physical remains might invalidate the resurrection, but is it possible to still have a more or less Ebionite Christianity that conforms with that? Its entirely possible to imagine a Jewish Christianity with a very low Christology and that views Pauline Christianity as going off the deep end.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Amanda in the South Bay: Evidence of Jesus' physical remains might invalidate the resurrection
I thought it would invalidate the Ascension.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I grew up in a church that taught that Jesus' body is still in the grave, the "resurrection" was the memory of him inspiring the apostles. (TEC, 1950s). One of the few sermons I remember specified that any good person, theist or atheist, goes to heaven. (Good, of course, meant middle class values.)

That church turned me into an agnostic (maybe there's a God maybe there isn't, but it doesn't matter) because I saw no point spending a morning sitting on uncomfortable benches and enduring a boring program if whatever God might (or might not) exist didn't care.

Later God came to me in what I guess people call visions. So my faith is not at all based on the historical story, nor on the church program, but on experience.

The story helps keep us focused on what god are we talking about, what personality characteristics and values and goals and nature of broader reality. But don't most people who keep going to church feel personally touched by the experience - even if just a hint of peace or that somehow it will all make sense? The story is a vehicle that gets them into some sort of connecting with God, but the connection is what matters. (Just thinking out loud here.)
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
There are quite a few ideas that could wipe out my faith.

- A firm proof that God intended for women to be mere possessions, or some form of inferior human.

- A clear proof that, although God created LGBT people*, He thinks they are not His "children" in the same way that the rest of us are.

- That priests, ministers or other humans in authority are in some way defined as so special that they can do no wrong, and that they are allowed to act as they see fit.

- That large parts of the OT are actually instructions, not stories about what NOT to do.

* God obviously created the situation in which LGBTs could exist, since even Satan doesn't have the power to create. If there is a second Creator floating around, then the mess becomes untenable.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
All those things entail there being a God though, just one you don't feel is worth worshipping.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I appreciate the Antony Flew link from Sipech. Flew mentions these as examples of religious assertions: "God has a plan," "God created the world," "God loves us as a father loves his children."

To all three I'm a "no." So maybe I've already lost my faith. And yet there are things that I retain that seem important. That leaves me with an entirely internally contradictory set of beliefs, which I've given up trying to reconcile, and just accept that that's what I have.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Would someone please explain exactly how a 2000-year-old body could be definitely identified as that of Jesus?

Even if it really were, how could anyone be sure?

Moo
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Well, there you have it. No historical information could ever make anyone lose faith, because they'd just say "how can you be sure?" And, "that's not what my tradition says, so I don't believe it." And so on. Not even for the sake of a thought experiment about if such-and-such historical fact could be surely known, etc., can it be contemplated that anything could be known that would challenge faith.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Well they have reliably identified King Richard and Tutenkhamun, I suppose it would be just about possible - a crucified body, with a stab wound and a geneology buried with it maybe ?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well they have reliably identified King Richard and Tutenkhamun, I suppose it would be just about possible - a crucified body, with a stab wound and a geneology buried with it maybe ?

AIUI, Richard was identified by comparing the DNA of the skeleton with the DNA of known modern-day relatives.

I know less about King Tut, but I assumed that there was some sort of identification within the tomb.

Moo
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yes, inscriptions - though latterly they have also done dna comparisons to other royal burials in the area.

But Jesus being buried with a genology, a scroll of his lineage back to David or something, would have a similar sort of evidential weight to an inscription - provided it could be carbon dated or otherwise authenticated as going into the grave at the same time as the body.

Because after all faking Jesus death like that with a random stolen body, would have been totally pointless if no one was ever alerted to his death.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Was it customary among Jews at the time to bury a body with a genealogy? I have never heard of this.

Moo
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I have no idea, but I imagine you might if you thought you were burying the messiah.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have several bishops and others professing to be Christians whilst denying some of the basic generally accepted historical tenets of Christianity, like Jesus' divinity and all the miraculous goings on with his life and death?

It seems to me that while faith has a positive correlation with historical facts, it does not rely upon them. The alleged "facts" Christianity relies on are like those games of "telephone" or Chinese Whispers, where a story is told and retold before being written down. We really don't have a consistent factual record as it stands, and we cannot have one, so the details are not so important. Stories necessarily change as they are retold, with details invented, characters changes, settings and timing altered. The content is made to fit the teller's perspective and situation, and response to audience. We don't know that the bible and history of the faith as received is reliable history, thus, new historical info makes little difference. The main thrust and message remain intact.

Thus, my response to the OP is that there really isn't any historical info that would cause loss of my faith. Only alteration and adaptation. Unless something completely ridiculous was proposed, like God is really Satan, and Satan is masquerading as God, who is imprisoned somewhere. (isn't this in a graphic novel or comic somewhere, since the gnostics invented such ideas so long ago, and we never actually write new stories?)
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
AIUI the customary burial practice was to lay the body on a shelf in a tomb and leave it there until there was nothing left but bones. Then the bones were put into a jar called an ossuary.

I believe the ossuary was labelled with the name of the dead person and the name of his father.

Moo
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
But Horseman Bree! That would make you orthodox!!
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
And of course there's the Tardis (A Clarke has a lens that happens to confirm his view).

And I think that's enough for us to conceptually imagine the evidence.

I don't think there's much barring a really bizzare set of circumstances that would come up realistically.

So I think it's one of the things that is so foundational it ought to be on the list. But so unevidentional that it ought to be pointed ought that it's Theoretical not Practical.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There are quite a few ideas that could wipe out my faith.

- A firm proof that God intended for women to be mere possessions, or some form of inferior human.

- A clear proof that, although God created LGBT people*, He thinks they are not His "children" in the same way that the rest of us are.

- That priests, ministers or other humans in authority are in some way defined as so special that they can do no wrong, and that they are allowed to act as they see fit.

- That large parts of the OT are actually instructions, not stories about what NOT to do.

* God obviously created the situation in which LGBTs could exist, since even Satan doesn't have the power to create. If there is a second Creator floating around, then the mess becomes untenable.

This is a remarkably personal list, I must say. Why are gender/sexuality the only forms of discrimination or actions in the Bible that, if proven to actually be the will of God, would make you give up on Christianity? Not slavery or racism? Not violent war and conflicts in the OT?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There are quite a few ideas that could wipe out my faith.

- A firm proof that God intended for women to be mere possessions, or some form of inferior human.

- A clear proof that, although God created LGBT people*, He thinks they are not His "children" in the same way that the rest of us are.

- That priests, ministers or other humans in authority are in some way defined as so special that they can do no wrong, and that they are allowed to act as they see fit.

- That large parts of the OT are actually instructions, not stories about what NOT to do.

* God obviously created the situation in which LGBTs could exist, since even Satan doesn't have the power to create. If there is a second Creator floating around, then the mess becomes untenable.

This is a remarkably personal list, I must say. Why are gender/sexuality the only forms of discrimination or actions in the Bible that, if proven to actually be the will of God, would make you give up on Christianity? Not slavery or racism? Not violent war and conflicts in the OT?
Aren't those covered in point 4?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
All those things entail there being a God though, just one you don't feel is worth worshipping.

If faith is covenantal and relational rather than propositional, then that is loss of faith.

It's a loss of faith I fear as much as the simple propositional one, to be honest. More, perhaps - no God and after death I'm back as I was before birth - a God who's a right git and I've got to spend eternity with him or being tormented at his behest, apparently.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:

This is a remarkably personal list, I must say. Why are gender/sexuality the only forms of discrimination or actions in the Bible that, if proven to actually be the will of God, would make you give up on Christianity? Not slavery or racism? Not violent war and conflicts in the OT?

Aren't those covered in point 4?
There's slavery in the New Testament.

[code]

[ 12. November 2014, 10:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have several bishops and others professing to be Christians whilst denying some of the basic generally accepted historical tenets of Christianity, like Jesus' divinity and all the miraculous goings on with his life and death? [...]

Sure, TEC bishops Pike & Spong come immediately to mind, along with Robinson in England, and Richard Holloway in Scotland.

Plenty more bishops undoubtedly think it, but lack the guts to say so in public. Their yellowbellied silence makes things so much harder for Christians who share their doubts, Christians who should feel confident and secure in their beliefs, and who should be able to expect their fellow believers to treat them with warmth and respect.

Setting aside miracles and a physical resurrection is a thoroughly mainstream view in theological circles. Getting it accepted in the public consciousness is gonna take much longer, but with the information revolution, I'm hopeful it'll happen.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
Evidence of Jesus' physical remains might invalidate the resurrection, but is it possible to still have a more or less Ebionite Christianity that conforms with that? Its entirely possible to imagine a Jewish Christianity with a very low Christology and that views Pauline Christianity as going off the deep end.

That's sort of what I was thinking. I might still label myself some kind of Jesus-follower in that case. Unless it were proven that Jesus never existed. I think that would do it for me.

And if it were proven that Henry VIII just broke with Rome to divorce his wife, goodbye Episcopal Church! [Smile]

[ 12. November 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But Horseman Bree! That would make you orthodox!!

There are many parts of Orthodox thought that leave me cold, not just those I cited.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you'll find that many Anglicans (Episcopalians) would agree that Henry VIII broke with Rome just so that he could divorce his wife.

If Rome had sanctioned the divorce I don't think Henry would have broken from Rome at all ... which isn't to say that some kind of split from Rome wouldn't have developed at some time or other.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, I think it would be possible to have an Ebionite form of Christianity - or some kind of 'truncated' form of the faith - if I can be cheeky and put it that way - if Christ's remains were dug up in Palestine.

In fact, such a position already exists. It's the one that Byron and other liberals hold.

It's pretty much a spongy Spong position and it's been a view in some quarters for many a long day - as Belle Ringer has indicated it was the 'norm' in the Episcopalian church of her childhood and had probably been so for a long time before that.

I must admit, though, I do find it a bit condescending to be told that thanks to the wonder of modern communication methods and technology the benighted beliefs of those of us who still hold to some kind of supernaturalist faith and a belief in the Resurrection will soon be replaced by a Spongoid apprehension of the truth ...

[Paranoid]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you'll find that many Anglicans (Episcopalians) would agree that Henry VIII broke with Rome just so that he could divorce his wife.

If Rome had sanctioned the divorce I don't think Henry would have broken from Rome at all ... which isn't to say that some kind of split from Rome wouldn't have developed at some time or other.

Henry VIII breaking with Rome was a bit more complicated than that! The Sack of Rome by the Holy Roman Emperor's troops and the Pope being completely under the HRE's thumb was you know, fairly important too.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Or some theologians would be challenged by this proof that Jesus actually existed.

HAH! What's sad is that I can see that actually happening in such a situation...

I might as well throw my thoughts in, since I started the discussion. What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

- evidence that the Apostles never themselves believed in the Resurrection (i.e. they were selling what they knew to be a scam)

I think I could find a way around most anything else. But the first would mean what I believe about Jesus isn't true, and the second would mean that the church is based on a lie that invalidates it entirely.

The second would cause me to lose my faith. The first probably wouldn't. The question then becomes what evidence would convince me that the apostles knew the resurrection was a scam and they were selling a lie. Honestly, I can't imagine any evidence coming to light that would convince me the apostles knowingly lied. What would it be? Why would such evidence have ever existed in the first place? Why would it still exist and yet be unknown?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
Plenty more bishops undoubtedly think it, but lack the guts to say so in public. Their yellowbellied silence makes things so much harder for Christians who share their doubts, Christians who should feel confident and secure in their beliefs, and who should be able to expect their fellow believers to treat them with warmth and respect.

Oh...I respect Unitarians just not the ones carrying around a crozier.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you'll find that many Anglicans (Episcopalians) would agree that Henry VIII broke with Rome just so that he could divorce his wife.

If Rome had sanctioned the divorce I don't think Henry would have broken from Rome at all ... which isn't to say that some kind of split from Rome wouldn't have developed at some time or other.

Henry VIII breaking with Rome was a bit more complicated than that! The Sack of Rome by the Holy Roman Emperor's troops and the Pope being completely under the HRE's thumb was you know, fairly important too.
That explains why it ended up being a break at all, rather than a minor spat that was later mended, but doesn't change Henry's motivation.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
What historical information could make you lose faith?

What a sterile parlor game this question is!
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, I think it would be possible to have an Ebionite form of Christianity - or some kind of 'truncated' form of the faith - if I can be cheeky and put it that way - if Christ's remains were dug up in Palestine.

In fact, such a position already exists. It's the one that Byron and other liberals hold.

It's pretty much a spongy Spong position and it's been a view in some quarters for many a long day - as Belle Ringer has indicated it was the 'norm' in the Episcopalian church of her childhood and had probably been so for a long time before that.

I must admit, though, I do find it a bit condescending to be told that thanks to the wonder of modern communication methods and technology the benighted beliefs of those of us who still hold to some kind of supernaturalist faith and a belief in the Resurrection will soon be replaced by a Spongoid apprehension of the truth ...

[Paranoid]

That's not what I said: I said I hoped that such a view would come to be treated with respect.

Liberals have, IMO, been far too meek in response to abuse and sneering from so many fellow Christians. Probably 'cause many dislike confrontation, and want to be tolerant.

Hey, I'm all for tolerance, but it's gotta be mutual. If a person shows me no respect, they get none back. [Cool]

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...I respect Unitarians just not the ones carrying around a crozier.

I trust you were as forthright with your professors in seminary? [Devil]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
And if it were proven that Henry VIII just broke with Rome to divorce his wife, goodbye Episcopal Church! [Smile]

Hardly. If for no other reason than that TEC is only connected to Henry's split from Rome in about the same degree that the Methodists are. Once you posit an alternate history it's hard to be certain of anything. Without reformation in England (and Scotland?), would the Lutherans have been wiped out by a united Roman Catholic opposition?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Setting aside miracles and a physical resurrection is a thoroughly mainstream view in theological circles.

That's why it's best to avoid such circles like the plague.
 
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Without reformation in England (and Scotland?), would the Lutherans have been wiped out by a united Roman Catholic opposition?

In the 30 years' war the French bought your asses off with Swedish-led German mercenaries, so I'm not really sure the Catholics were ever either united or modern enough to take out the Lutherans in the North.

"We kicked ass at Breitenfeld,
We kicked ass in Prague.
We kicked the ass out of the Catholic League,
in a race where we had no dog!

We've kicked the ass of Poland
and we'll kick that of the French!
and as for Mother Russia,
we'll just kick until they're quenched!"
- Ode to old Swedish military victories, to be sung to the "There ain't but one way song" melody, and preferably before 1709.

[ 13. November 2014, 07:06: Message edited by: An die Freude ]
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Setting aside miracles and a physical resurrection is a thoroughly mainstream view in theological circles.

That's why it's best to avoid such circles like the plague.
And to think religion's gotten itself a rep for anti-intellectualism. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And which is why, Byron, I'm more respectful towards liberals than my previous post might suggest ...

Because as soon as Ad Orientem slags anyone off it creates an equal and opposite reaction in me that wants to embrace whoever he's having a go at with both arms ...

[Big Grin]

More seriously, is it necessarily a sign of anti-intellectualism to take a more 'supernaturalist' approach?

I've got to be honest - I'm in a cleft stick here.

For whilst, on one level, I can appreciate Belle Ringer's position re the TEC parish of her childhood, her talk of 'visions' and so on is enough to send me running to my local branch of the Secular Society ...

[Help]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the Henry VIII thing ... yes, it was more complicated than Henry VIII waking up one morning and thinking, 'Dang it! Catherine of Aragon isn't bearing me a son ... I know, I'll break with Rome so I can get a divorce ...'

Just as the Reformation in Germany was more complicated than Luther simply nailing 95 theses to a church door and saying, 'There you go ... suck on that ...'

There as Realpolitik involved in all these things.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] More seriously, is it necessarily a sign of anti-intellectualism to take a more 'supernaturalist' approach? [...]

Not at all, just to avoid robust counter-arguments. Disagree as I do, I at least respect, say, N.T. Wright for stepping up in the academy and making his case.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
And if it were proven that Henry VIII just broke with Rome to divorce his wife, goodbye Episcopal Church! [Smile]

Hardly. If for no other reason than that TEC is only connected to Henry's split from Rome in about the same degree that the Methodists are. Once you posit an alternate history it's hard to be certain of anything. Without reformation in England (and Scotland?), would the Lutherans have been wiped out by a united Roman Catholic opposition?
Hardly likely, from the Continental point of view the big revolution for Protestantism was in Holland, which marked a rebellion against the Spanish Empire which was the power house in Europe. It was far more bloody than England and Scotland put together.

Jengie

[removed second signature]

[ 13. November 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
What's history to do with anything? You might just as well ask an agnostic or an atheist "What historical evidence would make you accept the Athanasian Creed as true?"

In my case, I'd be half way there, in a sense, if Christians accepted that there isn't any.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Setting aside miracles and a physical resurrection is a thoroughly mainstream view in theological circles.

That's why it's best to avoid such circles like the plague.
And to think religion's gotten itself a rep for anti-intellectualism. [Snigger]
There is nothing anti-intellectual about the supernatural; quite the reverse. Decrying the supernatural is simply attempting to push God into a box that she won't fit into.

God is not bound by the natural only.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.

Aye, but both my mind and heart find many of the supernatural claims of traditional Christianity unlikely.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.

Aye, but both my mind and heart find many of the supernatural claims of traditional Christianity unlikely.
That's something you have to work out for yourself, of course, whatever conclusion you happen to come to in the process. An all mind approach, I would argue, naturally leads to atheism.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that an 'all mind' approach can lead to atheism.

But so can fundamentalism.

Lots of atheists are former fundamentalists.

Indeed, it could be argued that atheism is itself a form of fundamentalism ...

Fundamentalism of all kinds can lead to loss of faith. Fundamentalism doesn't bend but snaps when the winds blow.

Fundamentalists paint themselves into a corner from which there is no escape until the paint dries or the only option is to abandon faith entirely.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] Indeed, it could be argued that atheism is itself a form of fundamentalism ... [...]

It could, but it isn't. It can reasonably be argued that everyone here's an atheist (unless y'all believe in Odin, Persephone, and Ahura Mazda).

Even if theism refers only to the Trinity, by itself, it's just disbelief, it has no fundamentals. (Besides griping about Dick Dawkins' diarrhetic Twitter stream.)

Me, it's all about Loki. Tricky bastard, but never boring.

Evensong, no, the anti-intellectualism doesn't lie in believing in the supernatural, but in avoiding its critics.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

Interesting. But don't the Gospels say that the tomb was empty?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Byron ...

[Big Grin]

Yes, now I'd agree with you whole-heartedly about where the anti-intellectualism lies ...

Meanwhile, say one to Loki for me next time you're chatting to him ...

I'll know who to blame then the next time something tricky happens.

[Biased]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

Interesting. But don't the Gospels say that the tomb was empty?
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
I trust you were as forthright with your professors in seminary? [Devil]

None of my seminary professors carried croziers even though each and every single one of them acted like little Peters in their own classroom making ex cathedra statements on their pet theories and anathematizing all those who disagreed. None of my professors were Unitarians either. My NT professor wrote a book making a case for the physical resurrection of Christ. My theology professor was a die hard Trinitarian who believed heresies were a bad thing.

There was my ethics professor. He was an aging hippie. So...we took him with a grain of salt.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.

Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.

Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
I think the idea that Jesus didn't exist would affect some symbolic or liberal Christians. It would make Christianity purely mythological, whereas for me, at any rate, religion also has to include flesh and blood. It would be too ethereal. But maybe others would find it OK.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I doubt if any possible proof of Jesus's death, or nonexistence, would be believed by =everybody=. There are, after all, there are still people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. No proof suffices if you do not want to accept it.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Byron ...

[Big Grin]

Yes, now I'd agree with you whole-heartedly about where the anti-intellectualism lies ...

Meanwhile, say one to Loki for me next time you're chatting to him ...

I'll know who to blame then the next time something tricky happens.

[Biased]

[tangent]

Burnt toast and knots in sewing thread (which therefore render that bit of thread unusable) are sacred to Loki. I'm far from a Lokean but I love that.

[/tangent]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
In what way?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
But is the resurrection a completely different body? Surely we wouldn't be ourselves then and nothing at all has been raised up. I would argue that the resurrection body is only new in that it has been transformed, or rather ransfigured, otherwise it is the same body.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI the customary burial practice was to lay the body on a shelf in a tomb and leave it there until there was nothing left but bones. Then the bones were put into a jar called an ossuary.

I believe the ossuary was labelled with the name of the dead person and the name of his father.

Moo

Ah yes, Yeshua bar Yosep. Such uncommon names that a box with them on must be the Jesus and Joseph of the Gospels.

Not [Roll Eyes]

[ 19. November 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The resurrection body is, of course, different but it is not an entirely new entity - it very much depends on the original body in the way that an ear of wheat depends on the seed.

That shouldn't be taken, however, to mean that every bit of the dead body is needed in order to construct the resurrection body.

The doctrine of the resurrection would never, ever have taken hold if the same body that Jesus was buried with was not itself raised and walked out of the tomb - the Jews with their very definate belief in the resurrection of the dead would have just turned away from a message of a spiritual resurrection; it would have been a total nonsense to them.

Any thought of trying to foist a non-corporeal resurrection on the church reveals yet another failure to understand, appreciate or honour the Jewish basis of the faith we declare.

[ 19. November 2014, 16:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Muddy, no-one is trying to "foist" a non-corporeal resurrection on anyone. Some of us, however, have varying levels of confidence in the literal truth of the physical resurrection and explore to what degree the Christian faith can withstand doubt, or even the theoretical refutation of this factor.

If you don't find it difficult to believe in a literal resurrection then perhaps you don't need to go through this sort of process, but those of us who are naturally sceptical often do. I wouldn't say that I believe in a non-corporeal resurrection, much less would I "Foist" it on anyone, but nor can I put my hand on my heart and say "absolutely I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead leaving no bodily remains." and I have to work my faith out in the presence of that uncertainty and even scepticism.

It would be perhaps going a little far to say that the "foisting" comes from the conservative end who insist we must believe in a physical resurrection, or else give up Christianity altogether, but that's often how it feels, and gives rise to the question I've asked more than once on here - what do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.

[ 20. November 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.

It's a good question, worthy of it's own thread.

In Church I tend to shut up unless asked, and even then I say the minimum about my doubts. I truly don't want to be difficult.

I can neither pretend to believe nor just not believe. So I skip saying/singing the bits I find impossible. Nobody notices.

On here it's different. I try to ask the questions, but am rarely satisfied with the answers. I can't believe in a God who creates, then rejects - however strong the reasons seem to be.

[ 20. November 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think it's often difficult to bring stuff like this up in church, and also, some people will instantly accuse you of not being a True Christian.

I used to harangue my wife about this stuff, but since she's a pagan, her replies were rather one-sided. Forums like this are indeed a useful outlet.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.

It's a good question, worthy of it's own thread.

In Church I tend to shut up unless asked, and even then I say the minimum about my doubts. I truly don't want to be difficult.

I can neither pretend to believe nor just not believe. So I skip saying/singing the bits I find impossible. Nobody notices.

On here it's different. I try to ask the questions, but am rarely satisfied with the answers. I can't believe in a God who creates, then rejects - however strong the reasons seem to be.

That was Uranus, and he had his nuts cut off
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.

Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
If they were purely symbolic rather than based to some degree on real events (allowing for the distortions of memory), then there would be no Christianity, and probably also no Islam. There are some very powerful myths, but (e,g,) I don't see anyone starting a world religion based on Paolo Cuelho's books, or reviving the ancient Greek Gods.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
[Roll Eyes] Leo, you took more than 24 hours to post your response and I'd stopped looking for one by then. Life intervened. I forgot to check back. Also, what Ad Orientem just said.

The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.

I'm certain that your own alacrity and lack of diffidence will ensure a speedy response.

[ 20. November 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If the Jesus story is not true in terms of Him being the hypostatic union through parthenogenetic conception by God the Holy Spirit and the minimal, oecumenical creeds, then we have made it ALL up. Which isn't at all credible due to the fallibility, the inconsistencies, the errors, the humanity of the Gospels and Acts. And the incredible, unbelievable, outrageous claims. Together they are not just sublimely, synergistically credible, they couldn't be more so. For them not to be true the writers would have to be the greatest and most collectively deluded geniuses of all time.

Historical disproof isn't necessary. All that's necessary is an antithesis to the thesis. I'd accept an equal antithesis, not just a superior one. Just like I'll accept oxygen in an extrasolar planetary atmosphere as proof that God didn't create life or mind.

Any one? And I'm as postmodern and deconstructed as you can get.

The greatest novel of all time will be the story that equals the divine humanity, the human divinity (the ULTIMATE act of dumbing down either way), the simplicity of Christ. Surely now is the time? What do we need to wait for? If it can be done, it can be done NOW. Here. By us.

For if the first circle of Matthew, Mark, John and Peter and James and Jude were innocently deluded and all the Marys and Marthas and other Matthews and Lazaruses and whoever were just Caravaggio vignettes in their collective delusion or even part of the innocent conspiracy of delusion, then God WAS the God of the Jews if He exists at all.

And that story is easy to rationalize away once you've done a decent job of explaining away Jesus.

Any one?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Martin60: Just like I'll accept oxygen in an extrasolar planetary atmosphere as proof that God didn't create life or mind.
Is HD 209458b good enough?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.

Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
If they were purely symbolic rather than based to some degree on real events (allowing for the distortions of memory), then there would be no Christianity, and probably also no Islam. There are some very powerful myths, but (e,g,) I don't see anyone starting a world religion based on Paolo Cuelho's books, or reviving the ancient Greek Gods.
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, there are plenty reviving the ancient Greek gods, and other pantheons. They (worryingly) seem to be popular with far-right/neo-Nazi groups in Europe.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
No more than the Sun Le Roc, no.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?

- the verified remains of Jesus

That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.

Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old

False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
[Roll Eyes] Leo, you took more than 24 hours to post your response and I'd stopped looking for one by then. Life intervened. I forgot to check back. Also, what Ad Orientem just said.

The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.

I'm certain that your own alacrity and lack of diffidence will ensure a speedy response.

1 Cor 15:44 differentiates natural and spiritual bodies.

The former, in v. 47 is 'from the hearth' whereas the latter is from heaven.

v.50 the perishable doesn't inherit the imperishable

The seed is an analogy, not literal fact.

It all points to God creating a new body - in Jesus's case as the firstfruits of the new creation.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.

1 Cor 15:44 differentiates natural and spiritual bodies.

The former, in v. 47 is 'from the hearth' whereas the latter is from heaven.

v.50 the perishable doesn't inherit the imperishable

The seed is an analogy, not literal fact.

It all points to God creating a new body - in Jesus's case as the firstfruits of the new creation.

It all points to God creating a new body out of the old one. Obviously it's a great mystery how, but that is clearly what Paul implies.

Yes, the old one is "from the earth" and the new one from heaven - but so what? The perishable body, like the seed which "dies" in the ground, is transformed - in this case miraculously - into a gloriously imperishable body. This is what Paul believes.

Why would he use the analogy of the seed otherwise? If he meant to say there was a complete discontinuity between the old and the new bodies, why would he not choose an analogy which expressed such discontinuity instead of one which has continuity etched into it?

If you are right Paul should have been completely agnostic about whether the tomb was empty or not, or rather he should have tended towards the belief that the Lord's body should have been found, God having no further use of it. Very clearly, he shows no such indifference to the details of the resurrection account which he relates further up the same chapter.

Here's an illustrative chunk:
quote:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. [...] The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
Here the referent is the same in each paired clause: "it" (the old body) is the same "it" as the new one. This is the language of glorious transformation, not of discontinuity.

You of course can believe what you like about the resurrection, but you cannot make Paul your ally in the teeth of the textual evidence.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?
God is Almighty, don't you know?

[ 21. November 2014, 18:40: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?

quote:
God is Almighty, don't you know?
Yes - but I'd love to be there see it happening!

[ 21. November 2014, 19:05: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Go read John Donne's sonnet, the one that begins "At the round earth's imagined corners blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise, You numberless infinity of souls, Arise, and to your scattered bodies go: ..."

Awesomely science fictiony picture, that.

No, seriously. The resurrection body has its "roots" in the mortal body, that's for certain, just as an oak takes its beginning from the acorn. They are connected, and in some sense they are one and the same (though you'd never know, looking at an oak, that it had anything to do with an acorn if somebody hadn't told you).

The differences are obvious. But the continuity, the one-ness, is also there. It has to be there, if you're going to use the term "resurrection" properly at all. If God simply creates a resurrected person ex nihilo--screw that, I've just illustrated my own point. If God simply creates a not-dead person ex nihilo, that is what we call creation. It's only resurrection if it used to exist, and used to be dead.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
...Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam—and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.


There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes, if we were talking to the dimensionality of currently experienced by us in creation. If we are not, I suspect things get interesting.

FWIW (and its my opinion based on little evidence) I tend to imagine that resurrection implies a change in dimensionality. I also suspect that what is resurrected is not simply the person we were at the time of death. I am not sure life is cumulative rather than consecutive. Note this is highly speculative and I would not care to defend any of it but it is making you aware of other ways of conceptualizing the issue.

Jengie
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?

Doesn't Paul say something like "if Christ is not risen then we are the most unfortunate of all people ?"

Seems to me that if the Way of Jesus - loving your neighbour, being thankful for gifts of God, worshipping a loving-Father God in spirit and in truth, believing that all will be well and all manner of things will be well - is a good way to live out one's life regardless of what happens after death, then Paul's wrong. With that view of Christianity, whether the belief that leads to that Way turns out to be true or not is a secondary issue. If the materialists are right, there will be no opportunity for post-mortal embarrassment that we believed the fairy tale. Pascal's Wager rules...

The alternative slant on Christianity is that it absolutely requires giving up everything you have for the pearl of great price. That it's not a good way to live, it's a reckless throwing away of everything good in life, on the chance of heaven. Which would make Paul right.

Like a blind man offered a cure for his blindness that will take all the mental and physical resources he has - unfortunate indeed if he gives everything for a cure that turns out not to exist.

But then being forced to make that choice, having to choose between adapting to his situation as best he can or going "all in" for a cure, is a pretty cruel position to be in. Choosing to put someone in that position doesn't seem like the act of a loving father.

So I see the choice between those two interpretations of Christianity as being more important than how factually or symbolically one reads the gospels.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
...Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam—and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.


There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.

No--even for the very literal-brained, that's not necessary. By the time that oak I mentioned gets full-grown, there's probably not an atom left in it that is original to the acorn. Heck, there's probably not an atom left in you that was there when you were three years old. And yet there is continuity between the acorn and the oak, between the 3yo and the adult. I see no reason there shouldn't be continuity between the body that died and the risen body, regardless of how many atoms are recycled.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
How many atoms can dance on the head of an angel?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What type of angel?
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
that would be a right angel
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
How about a more 21st century analogy?
"For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."
I hope for a reboot, after death, into a more powerful operating system. God will have all of our essentials on a data stick, perhaps. In due course when the OS in the new heaven and earth is up and running he'll download us all unto a system with much more processing power. And we'll really be able to do some stuff then!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
that would be a right angel

(Groan.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.

Yes - I will be part of fish and shellfish which get eaten by other people. In fact my atoms may be recycled many, many times - so who do those atoms belong to come the day?

I'm beginning to think there can't possibly be any connection between the two.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.

Yes - I will be part of fish and shellfish which get eaten by other people. In fact my atoms may be recycled many, many times - so who do those atoms belong to come the day?

I'm beginning to think there can't possibly be any connection between the two.

And that's your prerogative, Boogie.

The whole thing is - is bound to be - a great mystery, however it happens. But I personally can't see how the alternative concepts of resurrection are any less implausible/"impossible" or staisfactory than the accounts involving substantial continuity/transformation. None of them are entirely comprehensible this side the grave anyway.

My intervention here was merely to point out that Leo's claim that St Paul somehow rejects the continuity/transformation account that the Gospels give us (empty tomb, stone rolled, discarded grave colthes, retention of some of Christ's wounds, etc.) is completely mistaken and cannot be borne by the actual text of his writings.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.

Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.

1 Cor 15:44 differentiates natural and spiritual bodies.

The former, in v. 47 is 'from the hearth' whereas the latter is from heaven.

v.50 the perishable doesn't inherit the imperishable

The seed is an analogy, not literal fact.

It all points to God creating a new body - in Jesus's case as the firstfruits of the new creation.

It all points to God creating a new body out of the old one.
God creates a new body - yes- out of the plans, the memoriees, the personality of the old one but not out of the molecules of cremated remains.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How about a more 21st century analogy?
"For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."
I hope for a reboot, after death, into a more powerful operating system. God will have all of our essentials on a data stick, perhaps. In due course when the OS in the new heaven and earth is up and running he'll download us all unto a system with much more processing power. And we'll really be able to do some stuff then!

I couldn't have put it better. It's an update of John Hick (but also of more orthodox thinkers) talking about a novel written in paper but thrown away and burnt. The author rewrites the novel on noew paper and with improvrmentsd to the chief character.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
God creates a new body - yes- out of the plans, the memoriees, the personality of the old one but not out of the molecules of cremated remains.

Obviously a cross-post with what I was saying to Boogie, but, I'm sorry, leo - that just makes no sense to me.

Of course, maybe you're closer to the truth about this than I am - I can't say since I don't even understand what you just said even means - but, whatever else, you can't claim that Paul is your ally here. He clearly goes for the kind of transformative continuity model that you claimed he rejected, as I think I have demonstrated above.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - I will be part of fish and shellfish which get eaten by other people. In fact my atoms may be recycled many, many times - so who do those atoms belong to come the day?

Let's do some back of the envelope estimates.

The current population of human beings is approximately 1/20th of the total number ever.

There are about 7.5 billion, each of whom is less than about 100kg. That's 7.5 billion x 20 x 100 kg = 15 000 billion kg = 1.5 * 10^13 kg.

About 70% of our bodies is water, or so we're told. There's an xkcd here about how much of the water in you has ever been drunk. You've drunk far more water in your life than currently forms part of your body.

I think if we ignore the water, the major elemental component of our bodies is carbon. There's a lot of carbon around in various parts of the carbon cycle. Let's just concentrate on the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since that's not part of anything else.
According to wikipedia the total mass of the atmosphere is 5.5 * 10^18 kg. 0.04% of that, or 1/2500 is carbon dioxide. So that's about 2 * 10^14 kg. (The Carbon Cycle gives a larger figure for carbon in the atmosphere; the rest is methane.) So the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere weighs ten times more than the total number of human beings that have ever lived.


If humans are 70% water, and everything that isn't water is carbon then the proportion of carbon in carbon dioxide and in human beings is about similar.

That's assuming all the carbon in people comes from carbon dioxide (and not all the rest of the carbon cycle). To say at most 10% of your carbon has once been part of another human being is very much an upper estimate.

So I think there are plenty of atoms to spare.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.

Yes - I will be part of fish and shellfish which get eaten by other people. In fact my atoms may be recycled many, many times - so who do those atoms belong to come the day?

I'm beginning to think there can't possibly be any connection between the two.

Well then, you won't be you then. In fact, there will be no resurrection. God will just be creating a whole load of completely new people.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So souls are atomic?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Since this thread now seems to have fixed firmly on this tangent, let me put a toe in the water, partly with the benefit of previous Ship discussions on the subject (unfortunately, the memorably titled What happened to all the fish? thread is nowhere to be found).

1) A distinction needs to be drawn between ressuscitations (Lazarus) back to an earthly body, and resurrection.

2) A distinction may also be drawn between Jesus' resurrection body (which briefly inhabited this world before ascending into heaven) and the believers' resurrection body which Paul describes and which belongs to the incorruptible Kingdom of God. In other words, whatever process was involved in Jesus' resurrection is not necessarily exactly the same as what awaits believers.

3) While the very strong inference (to my mind) of the NT is that Jesus' resurrection body somehow used the components of his pre-resurrection body, nowhere does it actually say so. We have a body, then an absence of body accompanied by an announcement that "he is no longer here", then a resurrection appearance.

4) No matter how you look at it, that appearance is odd. Nobody recognises him. The end of Mark even suggests he appeared in different forms to different people [Confused]

5) I think Paul's explanation in Corinthians makes a strong case for some sort of bodily resurrection, but does not require physical or biochemical continuity.

6) I have realised that the Bible doesn't actually say precisely whatever happened at the resurrection, whatever some people may assert. There is definitely a lot left unsaid and no doubt that's how it should be. At the same time, having been soul-searchingly round the question several times, I personally am back with Paul in affirming that if there is no resurrection, we are to be pitied the most among all men.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm broadly with you on all that, Eutychus. I just want to comment on the last two bits.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
5) I think Paul's explanation in Corinthians makes a strong case for some sort of bodily resurrection, but does not require physical or biochemical continuity.

6) [...] I personally am back with Paul in affirming that if there is no resurrection, we are to be pitied the most among all men.

Yup. It's just that, if there is no kind of transformative "physical" (if we quite know what the physical really is) continuity, I cannot see why it is a resurrection - rather than re-creation ex nihilo - at all. What is a bodily resurrection without some - albeit mysterious - bodily continuity? Again, in both the Apostles' and the Athanasian creeds we talk not of the resurrection of the person but excplicitly of the body.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if there is no kind of transformative "physical" (if we quite know what the physical really is) continuity, I cannot see why it is a resurrection - rather than re-creation ex nihilo - at all. What is a bodily resurrection without some - albeit mysterious - bodily continuity?

I don't know the precise answers to these questions!

I think that the emphasis on the body is perhaps less to insist on actual physical continuity (that's my takeaway from the narratives of Jesus' resurrection stopping short of that) than to make the point that the hereafter will be tangible and not ethereal - embodied, in fact.

We are not looking at ex nihilo creation inasmuch as the resurrection body comprises at least some characteristics of the old one, right through into heaven - the Lamb that was slain. But I'm not sure even that implies physical, atomic continuity as we can apprehend it in our limited, three-dimensional understanding of things.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Eutycus,

To pick up on one of your points, you say that we cannot necessarily equate Christ's resurrection with our resurrection. I would argue that we must. It is Christ's resurrection which gives us hope in the general resurrection precisely because it is of the same kind. He is the first of a new creation of which we will also be part, otherwise him becoming man was pointless.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The only continuity that matters is of me.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - I will be part of fish and shellfish which get eaten by other people. In fact my atoms may be recycled many, many times - so who do those atoms belong to come the day?

I'm beginning to think there can't possibly be any connection between the two.

Originally posted by Ad Orientum:
quote:
Well then, you won't be you then. In fact, there will be no resurrection. God will just be creating a whole load of completely new people.
Why couldn't God upload 'me' into a new, shiny, heavenly body?

<code>

[ 22. November 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Boogie

Are you sure there is any you apart from your body?

Jengie
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Boogie

Are you sure there is any you apart from your body?

Jengie

Nope

But, like I said, my parents (now) and me (in the future) will have no body to resurrect - we'll be being used by others - ultimate recycling! Fish food all.

Are you saying cremation and scattering ashes is wrong?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
But your body, the physical atoms of it, are not very important. (Proof? You trim your fingernails, do you not?) Did someone upthread mention that every atom of your body has been replaced since you were born? At least three or four times, probably.
What is important is the =data=. You are not your keyboard, or your server, or your wifi. The real you is your program. And I am sure God does good backups.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, like I said, my parents (now) and me (in the future) will have no body to resurrect - we'll be being used by others - ultimate recycling!

I think even at a gross underestimate, it'll be at least eighty generations, or two thousand years, before that's even half true (assuming the population rises by another two billion before it levels out).

Though given that many atoms replace themselves throughout our body, it's true that continuity of the same bit of stuff is probably unnecessary.

[ 22. November 2014, 16:56: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eutycus,

To pick up on one of your points, you say that we cannot necessarily equate Christ's resurrection with our resurrection. I would argue that we must. It is Christ's resurrection which gives us hope in the general resurrection precisely because it is of the same kind. He is the first of a new creation of which we will also be part, otherwise him becoming man was pointless.

That's not quite what I said. I said we cannot necessarily equate Christ's resurrection body, or the modus operandi of his resurrection, exactly with ours. I think it might be a case apart just as the person of Christ is a case apart. That doesn't stop it being one that opens the way for the hope of the general resurrection.

Another key difference is that I don't see our resurrection bodies hanging around on this earth and I think that line of thinking is hard to escape in 1 Cor 15.

Also, in the case of Jesus, there is clearly an important (if ultimately unspecified) link between his dead body and his resurrection body. This cannot apply so directly for people long dead and decomposed nor, as has been pointed out, to those cremated or indeed vapourised through no volition of their own.

It seems to me that making too dogmatic or physical a link between the old body and the new goes one step beyond Scripture and that this is one unhelpful step.

Like I say, I think the point is that we will have an embodied future existence just like we have one now, and that there will be some continuity between the two bodies - but a mysterious one.

That's why I don't entirely agree with Brenda Clough - we are more than the programme, otherwise the incarnation is meaningless and we are in danger of becoming gnostics.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The only continuity that matters is of me.

Flippin' 'eck, we agree on something!!

[Ultra confused] [Eek!] [Yipee]

I think the discussion about atoms and reconstituting all the bits from which to make a resurrected body rather misses the point, don't you think, everybody?

In my mind, the doctrine of the resurrection is simply what Martin implies - that we will be continuously ourselves. Whatever and however life after death happens, I want to be 'Me'. An isn't that what the doctrine of the resurrection of the body actually means?

If you believe in reincarnation, you come back as something else.
If you believe in the immortality of the soul, 'shuffling off this mortal coil' and flitting around in heaven, then you are less than the tripartite being you were in life.
The resurrection of the body ensures that whatever you are in this world, you will be again, fully identifiable, fully 'you' in the next, only immortal, glorified and amazing!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The resurrection of the body ensures that whatever you are in this world, you will be again, fully identifiable, fully 'you' in the next, only immortal, glorified and amazing!

Amen

I'll leave the atoms to God - as we all have to, in the end [Smile]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is what I mean:
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/why-moral-character-is-the-key-to-personal-identity/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campai gn=0657f362c9-Weekly_newsletter_21_November_201411_20_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0657f362c9-68609961
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The resurrection of the body ensures that whatever you are in this world, you will be again, fully identifiable, fully 'you' in the next, only immortal, glorified and amazing!

Amen

I'll leave the atoms to God - as we all have to, in the end [Smile]

What's going' on? An early Christmas truce??
I agree with Martin and now Boogie agrees with me?


[Angel]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
By the way, the 'being me' scenario is exactly why Jesus was bodily raised and walked out of that tomb!

Remember he said to the disciples, 'It is I, myself.'

He could not have said that had his decaying corpse been lying behind a rock.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Brenda Clough: This is what I mean:
This article seems to refute what you claimed earlier, that the important bit is the data that are stored in or memories.

(I find speculations about the way in which we'll be restored rather pointless myself.)
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Brenda Clough: This is what I mean:
This article seems to refute what you claimed earlier, that the important bit is the data that are stored in or memories.

(I find speculations about the way in which we'll be restored rather pointless myself.)

Yeah, akin to how many angels can dance on a pin or whether fish have souls...
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's why I don't entirely agree with Brenda Clough - we are more than the programme, otherwise the incarnation is meaningless and we are in danger of becoming gnostics.

Likewise. The "soul as software" idea is riven with philosophical problems.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
No truce Mudfrog [Smile] He COULD have said that whilst looking at His trashed body. But He didn't.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Stone me guys! Who's literalist now?!
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Why should we think that Paul knew anything at all about how the resurrection will work? Maybe he just made up a bunch of pious stuff to reassure the Corinthians. Or maybe he was writing about how he thought it would have to happen, but had no special insight that is above challenge.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the least that can be said is that Paul's life story indicates he firmly believed in a bodily resurrection (it is a recurrent theme in his preaching) and that this belief was central to his faith as a whole.

Claiming he was just making pious stuff up in 1 Cor 15 of course calls into question his integrity and that of the other apostles, which takes us back to the issue in the OP and seekingsister's answer on page 1 - if the whole thing were proved to be a scam.

The idea that we might have mistakenly taken the Scriptures for some ancient Lord of the Rings from which the preface has fallen off at some point is one that occasionally dogs me, but I find myself repeatedly coming back to the conclusion, for several reasons, that this scenario is more implausible than the scenario of the Scriptures being written with honest intent, to tell the truth.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
My guess is that Paul, like any human, was answering queries of others in his writings.

Early Christians had been bubbling with enthusiasm prior to Paul's conversion and no doubt theories, and explanations of the unexplainable were shooting around in all different directions.
Paul didn't so much make stuff up, his attempt was to crystallize his own spiritual experience and incorporate it with testimonies of those who had direct contact with Jesus.

If we really want to get ultra cynical about people inventing stories and reject the the resurrection, then ought we not to be challenging Mary Magdalene, (always strikes me as strange that her name doesn't appear in Paul's letters).

Thing is can any *information*, historical or otherwise make certain people lose faith? In the same way as if some scientist were to come up with unequivocal proof that planet Earth and all it's inhabitants were a complete freak of the the Cosmos, therefore making our existence, activities and aspirations all utterly pointless. Would such a revelation make secular folk give up the will to continue?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Yes, it's true; Paul's letters often contain responses to questions or situations. In the case of the bodily resurrection though, Paul isn't making anything up, neither is he introducing a new Christian doctrine. He's merely repeating Pharisaic belief and introducing the Messiah into it at as a present reality not just a Jewish future hope.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's why I don't entirely agree with Brenda Clough - we are more than the programme, otherwise the incarnation is meaningless and we are in danger of becoming gnostics.

Likewise. The "soul as software" idea is riven with philosophical problems.
such as?
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "soul as software" idea is riven with philosophical problems.

Do please elaborate...

You really think the soul is hardware ?

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And did he actually read what i said? My allusion was to software.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's not actually software. It's an analogy! And is that not actually what we are using, when we talk about the resurrection of the body? We aren't saying that we want to be zombies, the meat reanimated and tottering around moaning about brains. We want to be really ourselves, really back and returned to a genuine life, as Jesus offers us. How He actually achieves this I am quite willing to leave up to Him and the angelic software engineers.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You really think the soul is hardware?

No. I think the soul is the form of the body. But really, that's a tangent too far.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And did he actually read what i said? My allusion was to software.

Yes, "he" did - you can always ask him yourself, you know. As it happens, this is the very first time you've used the word software on this thread so I can only guess where that allusion is meant to be.

Not only did I read what you said, I responded. So far you haven't yet responded to my argument that you get Paul wrong. Naturally, you needn't if you'd rather not.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A false dichotomy Eutychus. Just because we ALL make ALL of this stuff up doesn't impugn our integrity.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "soul as software" idea is riven with philosophical problems.

Do please elaborate...

You really think the soul is hardware ?

I think that talking about the soul as a definite thing is a problem.
Of course, software isn't a definite thing either. If I've got a copy of Windows Vista failing to run on my computer, that doesn't stop anybody else having a copy of Windows Vista failing to run on their computer. So are the two copies of Windows Vista different pieces of software or the same piece of software?

Now suppose souls run on bodies like Windows Vista doesn't run on PCs. Can you have the same soul running on two bodies? But two copies of Windows Vista can't share information unless they're hooked up to each other. And even Windows Vista can parallel process when it's running on two different machines. That would suggest that two bodies running the same soul are more like two different people than they are like two instances of the same person. That doesn't quite seem to be what the analogy of the soul is aiming for in this discussion, since it would suggest that your soul running on a different body is a different person from your soul running on your own body.

Have you seen Dollhouse (the television series)?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A false dichotomy Eutychus. Just because we ALL make ALL of this stuff up doesn't impugn our integrity.

What makes you think that we are all making all of this up?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A false dichotomy Eutychus. Just because we ALL make ALL of this stuff up doesn't impugn our integrity.


 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "soul as software" idea is riven with philosophical problems.

Do please elaborate...

You really think the soul is hardware ?

I think that talking about the soul as a definite thing is a problem.
Of course, software isn't a definite thing either. If I've got a copy of Windows Vista failing to run on my computer, that doesn't stop anybody else having a copy of Windows Vista failing to run on their computer. So are the two copies of Windows Vista different pieces of software or the same piece of software?

Now suppose souls run on bodies like Windows Vista doesn't run on PCs. Can you have the same soul running on two bodies? But two copies of Windows Vista can't share information unless they're hooked up to each other. And even Windows Vista can parallel process when it's running on two different machines. That would suggest that two bodies running the same soul are more like two different people than they are like two instances of the same person. That doesn't quite seem to be what the analogy of the soul is aiming for in this discussion, since it would suggest that your soul running on a different body is a different person from your soul running on your own body.

Have you seen Dollhouse (the television series)?

Isn't it the spirit that is immortal, and the soul is its vehicle, just as the body is the soul's vehicle? So the body has an organic life and intelligence/consciousness, just like the soul has a soul-ish consciousness.

The body's identity/consciousness can fragment in certain circumstances throughout life, and the soul's consciousness can fragment less easily, but this still happens. And occasionally I have also seen two souls occupying one body, though that is not usually a happy meeting. Does one soul occupy more than one body in one lifespan? Maybe. I don't think it's a particularly useful question - we are supposed to get on with the life that we have NOW in this body.

It's not really possible to conceive of the soul as software - because if it is, it operates in a very different manner to the software we are familiar with. The body has life and most of our experience in this world i through the alive body and its senses - which living awareness includes emotion and a few other aspects that form a large part of what we usually think of as "us" and "consciousness". The soul is more a ghost in the machine, and in turn the spirit is a ghost in the soul's machine. But nevertheless we can be aware of more than one layer.

[ 24. November 2014, 06:17: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A false dichotomy Eutychus. Just because we ALL make ALL of this stuff up doesn't impugn our integrity.


Martin, we didn't make God up. You are deceived if you think so and If you are, then God has allowed that as a judgement because you have turned your back on truth. This if true is very sad. The postmodern Zeitgeist is a chimera. It seems you want to find hope by letting go of certainty. As king Lear said nothing can come of nothing ..seeking truth through questioning reality drove Sartre crazy and it will drive you crazy too. You remind me of Gogo in "Waiting For Godot."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A false dichotomy Eutychus. Just because we ALL make ALL of this stuff up doesn't impugn our integrity.


Martin, we didn't make God up. You are deceived if you think so and If you are, then God has allowed that as a judgement because you have turned your back on truth. This if true is very sad. The postmodern Zeitgeist is a chimera. It seems you want to find hope by letting go of certainty. As king Lear said nothing can come of nothing ..seeking truth through questioning reality drove Sartre crazy and it will drive you crazy too. You remind me of Gogo in "Waiting For Godot."
And I'd counter that by saying certainty is a chimera. Nothing is certain. You do not, cannot, know that God exists. You do not, cannot, know that Jesus rose from the dead, or in what form. You do not, cannot, know that you've not got it completely wrong and the Quran is the true revelation of God. You do not, cannot know that you are not an entity floating through space misinterpreting random quantum stimuli for the physical universe you perceive.

You may be fairly sure on one or more of those, but you do not, cannot, know.

Certainty is at best an illusion, at worst an unattainable phantom.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
When I say all, I mean all bar One, and even then. It's not what I think, it's what I KNOW. For a fact.

Who feels what you feel?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You haven't answered my question.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
this is the very first time you've used the word software on this thread so I can only guess where that allusion is meant to be....

Not only did I read what you said, I responded. So far you haven't yet responded to my argument that you get Paul wrong. Naturally, you needn't if you'd rather not.

Someone else mentioned software. My analogy was of a novel - 'incarnated' in ink and paper, thrown into the fire and then later rewritten. The novel remained in the mind of God.

If the analogy is to software, the whole 'person' continues to exist in the computer's hard drive - or even in the mainframe of a network = the mind of God.

As to getting Paul wrong, I don't think I have. On the contrary I think Paul was getting at something like the above.
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
If we have a "soul" separate from the body and it is like software. Are you still "you" if we "run" you in a different body? Say you are male and we "run" you in a female body with its own brain. Is that still "you"? I don't think it makes sense to conceive of a "Soul" separate from your body.
And the issue of identity gets even worse. What if we put "you" body and "soul" in the Arabian peninsula 500 years ago and you grow up in an adopted family. Is that still "you"?
We are contingent beings made up of our circumstances and material body. There is no "essence" that you can find separate from both our body and circumstances that is still "you".
And by contingent I clearly mean there is no "eternal essence" of "you" like a "soul" or "spirit".

And if you disagree please answer the questions raised above.

[ 24. November 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

And if you disagree please answer the questions raised above.

I don't disagree - I just want to know where God will get my new body from.

(I told Mudfrog I'd leave it to God, but the only way to do that is to stop reading this thread and over-thinking it!)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I certainly have.
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
@Boogie
Well I am not a Christian but assuming a God that wanted to bring "us" back. If he is limited to 100% of the exact same atoms "we" had before death makes the task impossible or nonsense. You would have to believe "he" can make a new body with the same brain and memories as the old one. And of course "he" could make as many of those as "he" wanted. So which one is "You"? (But that last question is rhetorical I like what you said about not over thinking this)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I certainly have.

You answered my question "what makes you think we're making it all up" by "I KNOW we're making it all up". That's not an explanation, it's an assertion. You're not providing any support for it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sir, the answer is (in) the question. And the next one: Who thinks what you think?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Oh, I see.

quote:
...a fixed refusal of everything that was in any degree other than himself. He had passed from Hegel into Hume, thence through Pragmatism, and thence through Logical Positivism, and out at last into the complete void. The indicative mood now coresponded to no thought that his mind could entertain. He had willed with his whole heart that there should be no reality and no truth, and now even the imminence of his own ruin could not wake him
I hope you have not really embraced the same standpoint as Wither in That Hideous Strength. If you have, God have mercy on your soul, and besides, in that case I see no point in attempting to engage with others' views - in fact I can't see how you can believe it's possible.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I can't bring myself to believe in the idea that our 'immortal' soul is housed or encased in a mortal body.

I don't believe the soul is immortal - myth or fact, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden before they were able to eat of the tree of life - lest they live forever. Jesus also spoke about the one who can kill the soul.

I believe that immortality is give, not inherent; and 'that you may have life' and 'eternal life' refers to the new state of immortality that comes with salvation.

[ 24. November 2014, 16:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I grew up in a church that taught that Jesus' body is still in the grave, the "resurrection" was the memory of him inspiring the apostles. (TEC, 1950s). One of the few sermons I remember specified that any good person, theist or atheist, goes to heaven. (Good, of course, meant middle class values.)

That church turned me into an agnostic (maybe there's a God maybe there isn't, but it doesn't matter) because I saw no point spending a morning sitting on uncomfortable benches and enduring a boring program if whatever God might (or might not) exist didn't care.

Later God came to me in what I guess people call visions. So my faith is not at all based on the historical story, nor on the church program, but on experience.

The story helps keep us focused on what god are we talking about, what personality characteristics and values and goals and nature of broader reality. But don't most people who keep going to church feel personally touched by the experience - even if just a hint of peace or that somehow it will all make sense? The story is a vehicle that gets them into some sort of connecting with God, but the connection is what matters. (Just thinking out loud here.)

For me, this is a wonderful comment.

I really like hearing of your experience(s) and how you have reflected on them - what you made of it all; and make of it now.

So thank you Belle Ringer.

I reminds me of a tradition that says, (singeth)

"You ask me how I know He live ? He lives within my heart."

It is also interesting to note, that the Pureland (tradition) of Buddhism also speaks of Amitabha Buddha dwelling in the hearts of those who have received him.
 
Posted by MLE (# 18280) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
CNN reports that the Mormon church has quietly published some articles on its website addressing some historical controversies in the church. The one making waves is an admission that Joseph Smith had 30-40 wives in total, including at least one teenager and several who were already married to other men. Also that his first wife was not happy with it and did not consent to most of them, contrary to previous claims. The article is here.

The reaction among Mormons seems to be mostly that A) they kind of already knew this and B) they're still going to stay part of the LDS church.

To critics of the church it confirms some of their accusations - that Joseph Smith invented polygamy to indulge in his own desires, that the church lied and covered up the truth about its early history.

It makes me wonder what I would have to learn about the founders of Christianity (or a specific denomination) that would cause me to lose my faith. Does it matter that Christianity's founders lived 2000 years ago, while Joseph Smith's behavior was out of line with contemporary standards in the 1800s when he engaged in these actions? I'd like to think that it does - but then I wonder if it's just the same sort of rationalization that Mormons are doing.

So - is there anything you could learn (or that the church could reveal) that would make you lose faith?


 
Posted by MLE (# 18280) on :
 
I don't believe in the resurrection and don't see why that should invalidate Jesus's teachings. I call myself a Christian on that basis.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Someone else mentioned software. My analogy was of a novel - 'incarnated' in ink and paper, thrown into the fire and then later rewritten. The novel remained in the mind of God.

The analogy is certainly correct in that a novel that exists only in the mind of its author is not actually a novel, and a human being who exists only in the mind of God having no physical instantiation is not actually a human being.

Otherwise, I'm not sure the analogy works.

While the question is open, novels look rather like universals. The same novel exists in a large number of different copies, just as the universal 'human being' is instantiated in a large number of different humans.

Human beings, and souls presumably assuming souls are a separate thing, are concrete particulars rather than universals. The analogy thus far is highly inexact.

quote:
If the analogy is to software, the whole 'person' continues to exist in the computer's hard drive - or even in the mainframe of a network = the mind of God.
The computer's hard drive here is analogous to the human body; the network presumably to the entire physical world. Software existing in hardware is a rather different analogy to the divine ideas existing in the mind of God.

I'm inclined to think that God can by fiat declare that God's recreation of a person is that same person, in the same way that Shakespeare can declare that Falstaff in Henry IV and Falstaff in Merry Wives of Windsor are the same character. On the other hand, I don't think Shakespeare can bring Falstaff's dead body from Henry V onto stage in Merry Wives of Windsor (not without some sf-type rationalisation or getting postmodern). God can't bring a human being into the world and declare that it's Jesus when Jesus' corpse is still around.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
- I just want to know where God will get my new body from.

There's more harm than good comes from worrying about such if you don't mind me saying.

I just think if I'm resurrected then [Yipee] yipee. If I'm not then there won't be any worrying about it, because when the brain packs in then that will be that.
Then there's -- what if I'm resurrected and get the ol' eternal fire treatment? That kind of faith is likely to fill me with dread and is therefore not terribly useful.

In fact when it comes to historical information that makes me want to walk away from faith then some of the vengeful, judgemental and brutal parts of the bible can have that effect. Not sure that losing an attachment to Jesus quite works like that though. I don't feel it can be cast off in an intellectual way.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I haven't read the trilogy for 40 years and have been thinking of doing so. I loved it. And no, I'm not a solipsist.

(Hmmmm, is this a false dichotomy I see before me?)

Back to ALL of us making it ALL up ALL of the time. Please demonstrate an exception! We are Homo narrativus, Terry Pratchett's Pan narrans. We make up stories. Fictions. Whether they be limited companies or laws of motion or God. Or closed, wooden, dead dogmata based on the scant words of God dumbed down.

And I'm a fully paid up oecumenically creedal Christian with no buts. Jesus is more than even the synergy of His teachings, which I miserably fail to follow. And Jesus was a member of our story telling species. He was an utter consummate master at it. And a slave to it. Although a pretty liberated one. For His time. And enough for any. Prince trumps toad after all.

I do not doubt one fallible, erroneous word of the gospels and Acts. I know that in our making it all up, working it all out for ourselves, we are thought doing so by God who yearns for us and kicked us, draws us to an outer orbit and beyond. Some photon!

If anyone can come up with a half way decent story that rationalizes all that to electrons swapping photons, great. Materialism is infinitely more credible than the Gods of the Jews - including Jesus - as it is. But there is no sign of such a story. Nowhere in literature yet. And we aren't remotely capable here. Not even as remotely capable as science is of creating life.

So sorry to disappoint, in all my deconstruction I find that faith, the least of impossible gifts, remains unscathed.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
this is the very first time you've used the word software on this thread so I can only guess where that allusion is meant to be....

Not only did I read what you said, I responded. So far you haven't yet responded to my argument that you get Paul wrong. Naturally, you needn't if you'd rather not.

Someone else mentioned software. My analogy was of a novel - 'incarnated' in ink and paper, thrown into the fire and then later rewritten. The novel remained in the mind of God.

If the analogy is to software, the whole 'person' continues to exist in the computer's hard drive - or even in the mainframe of a network = the mind of God.

As to getting Paul wrong, I don't think I have. On the contrary I think Paul was getting at something like the above.

I can't for the life of me see how you think you have established that. Dafyd has very obligingly raised some of the pertinent objections to your analogies wrt to the soul already. I myself have no energy to pursue that tangent too much further.

Instead, let's recap our exchanges on this thread so far wrt the original source of our difference.

My intervention here began with an objection to your telling seekingsister here that her conception of the resurrection of the Lord as involving the transformation of his mortal body was incompatible with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 15.

Your position throughout has been that the nature of the resurrection of our Lord (and by extension our own) is such that, were his dead body to have been discovered thereafter, it would provide no reason whatsoever to doubt his resurrection and that Paul agrees with you on this.

My substantive responses to this - arguing that Paul clearly believed that the resurrection body is tranformatively continuous with the pre-resurrection body - are here, here, and here.

As I have pointed out, not only does Paul nowhere explicity or implicitly reject such a continuity between the pre- and post resurrection body, but the very analogy he uses to describe the relationship between them - a seed "dying", being buried and subsequently sprouting up as a new plant - is steeped in the concept of (transformative) continuity. The bodily resurrection of the Lord clearly mattered to Paul, like, a lot.

If, after our exchanges, you still want to argue that Paul in fact rejects such a continuity, please respond specifically to the objections I have already made to that thesis. Otherwise, I don't see where this exchange could fruifully go from here.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
P.S. Leo, you seem to keep changing the goalposts. Back here you say, "My allusion was to software".

When I pointed out that this was, in fact, the first time you'd even mentioned software on this thread you responded:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Someone else mentioned software. My analogy was of a novel - 'incarnated' in ink and paper, thrown into the fire and then later rewritten.

Again, this is the first time on this thread that you have mentioned any such analogy.

Are you aware you are doing this? If not, it might be a good idea to review what you've already said before commenting again. If you are, I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean by it... or just knock it off.

[ 24. November 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
*eats some crow*

WRT to the novel reference, my apologies to leo - I missed his passing reference to a John Hick theory here

*spits some feathers*

[ 25. November 2014, 01:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal] ... and my code's gone all to Freuchie. Clearly past my bedtime. Sorry folks...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sorted, Chester.

And welcome MLE! Hope you find much to enjoy here. Looks like you need some practice with our ancient UBB code. There's a practice thread in the Styx and we've all used it from time to time.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Back to ALL of us making it ALL up ALL of the time. Please demonstrate an exception!

Of course I cannot, but here's my take in brief: I cannot make sense of the Old Old Story if it is nothing more than (I do not say less than) narrative.

Central to that narrative is the Incarnation, which to my mind involves God invading spacetime and achieving something at the cross (and the tomb) that could only be achieved by entering history, tangible reality, objective reality. It has everything to do with materiality.

I have been round this several times in my mind. If it's all just subjective mind-games and storytelling, the narrative makes no sense. It only makes sense if it rests on an objective, historical, incarnate truth, because at the heart of it lies the assertion of resurrection from the dead.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Then there isn't even a fag paper between us.

The core story, Immanuel, is, of course, 110% completely true.

The eyewitness accounts are 110% valid eyewitness accounts. ALL seen through a glass darkly. Through human eyes. In hindsight. And with every other visual defect.

All that came after, through the ever weakening conduit of the Church, more so.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The eyewitness accounts are 110% valid eyewitness accounts.

Ah, so the original eyewitnesses are not part of "ALL of us"? That makes (a bit) more sense.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Back to ALL of us making it ALL up ALL of the time. Please demonstrate an exception!

Of course I cannot, but here's my take in brief: I cannot make sense of the Old Old Story if it is nothing more than (I do not say less than) narrative.

Central to that narrative is the Incarnation, which to my mind involves God invading spacetime and achieving something at the cross (and the tomb) that could only be achieved by entering history, tangible reality, objective reality. It has everything to do with materiality.

I have been round this several times in my mind. If it's all just subjective mind-games and storytelling, the narrative makes no sense. It only makes sense if it rests on an objective, historical, incarnate truth, because at the heart of it lies the assertion of resurrection from the dead.

The inside outside business interests me. Is God, at least before Jesus, outside the world? After Jesus we think of God as being present in the world, not just in the lifetime of Jesus, but in a permanent way, in the Spirit as well as the Son. And we might read that back into pre-Jesus time and find, say, the Spirit at creation.

Perhaps Jesus has changed the way we think about God, the Emmanuelisation of the deity, which I think I would describe as a work of the narrative.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sorted, Chester.

Obliged to you, sir. I even made a mistake about which post I meant to link to. I did not cover myself in glory last evening.

For the avoidance of any confusion, leo's reference to Hick's novel analogy is here. For the record, I share Dafyd's objections to both the software and novel analogies, and I had also in mind the famous teletransporter thought experiments about personal identity I used to discuss with my students, but I'm not looking to pursue that tangent much.

Anyway, I'd still like to know how leo justifies his claim that Paul rejects the bodily resurrection (from the old body), and whether he thinks therefore that Paul would have been indifferent to the discovery of the reamins of Jesus's mortal body.

Sorry to bang on.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
How much identity is there between me today and me many years ago? It feels impressively solid at first thought, but much has changed about how I see myself, the memories I have access to and those which have changed in the recalling, my personality, my abilities, how others react to me and who those others are. There is continuity, but not sameness. If my teenage self knew that he would still be alive forty years hence, would he be fully satisfied that the man I am today would represent who he was in 1974? Is continuity with change identity? How much change is possible?

Add to that the realisation that identity is dependent also on others with whom we have relationships, and it softens or shifts the questions about life and death and what resurrection needs to deliver.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The inside outside business interests me. Is God, at least before Jesus, outside the world? After Jesus we think of God as being present in the world, not just in the lifetime of Jesus, but in a permanent way, in the Spirit as well as the Son. And we might read that back into pre-Jesus time and find, say, the Spirit at creation

I think I tend to see God the Father as being outside our spacetime; that sort of jives with "in light inaccessible" for me.

But I also think the more you look in Scripture the more you see both the Spirit and the Son present in the world - whether it's hovering over the face of the waters, having lunch with Abraham, or in the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Nevertheless, these are all rather mysterious and intangible involvements in our world.

The Incarnation changes things because it is the Son inhabiting the world from inside, as you put it, within the very fabric of our own existence.

quote:
Perhaps Jesus has changed the way we think about God, the Emmanuelisation of the deity, which I think I would describe as a work of the narrative.
I'm never quite sure whether we have common ground when you start taking about narratives, all I can say again is that for me, it being a narrative doesn't preclude it also being objectively true (notably in terms of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, though as discussed above I'm willing to hedge my bets slightly on the precise mechanics of the latter), and as far as I'm concerned that objective truth is important as far as the whole thing being worthwhile goes.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Objective truth? I am impressed by the arguments that truth is contextual and multi-voiced, and therefore not objective in the sense of being clean and motionless like a nicely lit exhibit in a museum.

That doesn't mean truth can't be true, but it does mean that it can't be bottled or written down - except in story form. And that I have to learn the knack of caring about the truth in a more relaxed way, not owning it, but sidling up to it in such a way that it might give itself to me, like a musical interpretation.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
But not all truth is contextual and multi-voiced.

Take death. Whatever scientific arguments there might be about the boundary between life and death, whatever narratives we may spin, and whatever we might say about enduring collective memories and so forth, there comes a point where a body no longer has life (this has just come home to me again as a friend of mine died yesterday and I went to view the body). That seems pretty objective to me.

I'd even go so far as to say that all our storytelling is, in the end, an attempt to make sense of that absurdity of the human condition or lessen its impact somehow - and yet it awaits us all in the end. We cannot storytell our way out of death.

Which is why the gospel narrative of destroying that last enemy, and the evidence it presents to that end, is so compelling, and why so much hinges on it resting on some objective truth.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I'd even go so far as to say that all our storytelling is, in the end, an attempt to make sense of that absurdity of the human condition or lessen its impact somehow - and yet it awaits us all in the end. We cannot storytell our way out of death.

Which is why the gospel narrative of destroying that last enemy, and the evidence it presents to that end, is so compelling, and why so much hinges on it resting on some objective truth.

Agreed.

Which is why the question still remains - is the Gospel storytelling based on a true, real, verifiable resurrection or not?

We can't know for sure. It's a matter of faith. But then so are all other life after death beliefs.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
We all die, but .. That seems to be the Gospel. Death is not abolished, but its poisonous hold on life is overcome.

I don't know if it's safe to distinguish between truth and reality. Death is a brute reality, truth is our understanding of it, the stories we tell about what has happened. And we live in the world of truth, that's where our thinking and feeling are and the meaning or lack of it. (I'm not sue about this. Distinguishing between truth and reality is just another story, really.)

The biblical stories don't describe the end of death. Jesus resurrection is unwitnessed and problematic. The status of those still alive exercises Paul.

We had an interesting discussion years ago about the story in Matthew of graves opening and the dead walking into Jerusalem and being seen by many. It's hard to defend the historicity of the tale, but easy to warm to its generous message about the retrospective effect of resurrection.

As time goes by I am increasingly content to let go of my hankering for certainty, and to believe that contextual, community voiced truth-as-meaning is what I wanted all along. Nearly there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
hatless

I think we are at any particular point what the journey has made us.

There is a comparatively ancient Fisherfolk song (from a US group maybe?) called "The Sun's gonna shine" and it is about the Passion of Jesus. Contains the line.

"You know the things that you said and the things that you did they brought you where you are".

There is something compelling about the "you" in that. Despite the fact that, simply because of cell replacement, even our bodies cannot really be described as the same now as they were in the past. (I'm not sure to what extent that applies to all parts of our bodies.)

So I've got some sympathy with those who argue that if there is an essential "I" which can apply to our individuality, it cannot simply be a matter of matter. When the councils incorporated the term "resurrection of the body" in the ancient creeds, these findings about how our bodies actually work in maintaining and adapting were not really known. I suppose the ancient Hebrew "shalom" does a decent job in expressing that wholeness and peace involve both body and awareness coming together from some kind of inconsistency to harmony. I always find it interesting that in the John account, Jesus comes amongst the disciples with a "shalom".

I want to avoid any kind of body/mind dualism over this. We are what we are and what we become "in our bodies" (and I don't much like the "in" in that phrase.) So I'm not exactly sure how the old credal term "resurrection of the body" is to be understood today. But I believe we shall not be incorporeal, because the risen Jesus was not incorporeal, however mysterious and paradoxical some of the resurrrection accounts may appear. That's a close as I can get to expressing what resurrection of the body may mean.

But I take it that Jesus was recognised (that lovely word from Luke 24, "their eyes were opened and they knew him") and that recognition made all the difference. I expect to be recognisable to myself and to those who have known me in this life. How that's going to work in any detail I've just got to leave with God.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
To be recognised is a beautiful thing. I think it's also a feature of Jesus in his ministry. He knew people, including their secrets and thoughts. To meet Jesus was to come to yourself. You could say that all those encounters in Galilee had the quality of resurrection about them, and this quality is about more than just being, just surviving death, it has an enlarging, revelatory character.

Identity is given in relationships, and the resurrection of Jesus makes community.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'd still like to know how leo justifies his claim that Paul rejects the bodily resurrection (from the old body), and whether he thinks therefore that Paul would have been indifferent to the discovery of the reamins of Jesus's mortal body.

1 Cor 15 37-8 what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body (ESV) - the only continuity is the 'kernel' - in modern terms we might speak of the DNA. God creates a new body based on what it was in earthly terms but for a new dimension.

vv.40-41 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. - this new dimension is spiritual, not physical

v49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. - it is the 'image', the DNA, not the corpse

v50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable - the corpse cannot 'go to heaven'
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
So you're a gnostic then?
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'd still like to know how leo justifies his claim that Paul rejects the bodily resurrection (from the old body), and whether he thinks therefore that Paul would have been indifferent to the discovery of the reamins of Jesus's mortal body.

1 Cor 15 37-8 what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body (ESV) - the only continuity is the 'kernel' - in modern terms we might speak of the DNA. God creates a new body based on what it was in earthly terms but for a new dimension.

vv.40-41 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. - this new dimension is spiritual, not physical

v49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. - it is the 'image', the DNA, not the corpse

v50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable - the corpse cannot 'go to heaven'

exactly
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
This really speaks to me:
quote:
I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Job 19


 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MLE:
I don't believe in the resurrection and don't see why that should invalidate Jesus's teachings. I call myself a Christian on that basis.

It invalidates some of his teachings; the ones on the resurrection for example...

Welcome to the Ship!
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm afraid a lot of your response makes no sense to me, leo.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'd still like to know how leo justifies his claim that Paul rejects the bodily resurrection (from the old body), and whether he thinks therefore that Paul would have been indifferent to the discovery of the reamins of Jesus's mortal body.

1 Cor 15 37-8 what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body (ESV) - the only continuity is the 'kernel' - in modern terms we might speak of the DNA. God creates a new body based on what it was in earthly terms but for a new dimension.
The kernel is our DNA? How do you reckon that? "For a new dimension"? I don't know what that means. But it might be worth pointing out that our DNA is very much part of our bodily substance. Nothing in this passage gives any support to your theory about what Paul means.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
vv.40-41 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. - this new dimension is spiritual, not physical.

But "the body that is sown" is our natural - physical - body, and right here in this very passage, Paul is saying that that very body, the "it" that is sown, is the same "it" that is raised as a spiritual body. That is what the text actually says. Apart from this, whatebver else Christ's resurrection body was, it was certainly also physical, unless the Gospels are completely unreliable.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
v49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. - it is the 'image', the DNA, not the corpse

Again, this gives no support to your contention, and your gloss on it - again, that our image is DNA - is incomprehensible to me.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
v50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable - the corpse cannot 'go to heaven'

Of course corpses - dead, lifeless bodies - don't go to heaven, but resurrected, glorified and living bodies inherit heaven. Where do you think Paul believed Christ's glorified body went?

[ 25. November 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I see from your responses to hatless and myself that you're doing approach-avoidance with postmodernism. With narratives. You do a VERY good job nonetheless of creating one. I'm just reconciled to it all. Somehow. It all fits. I don't avoid anything now, I run to it. And yes, when I say we ALL make it ALL up, I don't mean our erroneous primary sense data, what our eyes see and ears hear, so no I don't doubt Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James and Jude and even Paul as eyewitnesses. Neither do I doubt their full, broken, enculturated humanity. Or that of God Himself incarnate.

So I can stare Peter's bizarre esoterica in the face. And Paul's endorsement of altered states, slavery, patriarchy. As you say the truth, THE pivotal fact of the Incarnation changed them and bent everything they were to Itself, Himself. Even though He believed all sorts of nonsense. How could He not?

Their being truly weird by modern criteria doesn't matter at all. As modern is by postmodern.

We react. That's making things up. Telling a story. Some are more open than others. I'm trying to make up the best story that reconciles all I know.

Does anyone, ANY ONE, here know anyone who isn't? Even if they are helplessly, innocently in very narrow, literalist, legalist places? Just like Jesus struggled from.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So you're a gnostic then?

Not at all. Matter matters. Flesh matters. The resurrection body is appropriately (for a different dimension) enfleshed.

[ 26. November 2014, 10:13: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm afraid a lot of your response makes no sense to me, leo.

Obiously not. I can't put it any more clearly.

J. A. T. Robinson's 'The Body' and his commentary on 1 Corinthians deal with this matter in the kind of detail I cannot put here.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
That's as may be, leo. But our exchange began, you will remember, with my objection to your telling seekingsister that her belief in bodily resurrection was contradicted by Paul in 1 Cor 15.

Your own/others' theory about the complete discontinuity of the old and new bodies and the new "dimension" aside, would you be able to address some of my specific responses to you about how you, as you claim, can square such a theory with what St Paul says in the passages I have addressed?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your own/others' theory about the complete discontinuity of the old and new bodies and the new "dimension" aside, would you be able to address some of my specific responses to you about how you, as you claim, can square such a theory with what St Paul says in the passages I have addressed?

If you read what I wrote, it was not about discontinuity. Quite the reverse.

I have addressed the points you raised and suggested some reading material to help you understand.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm afraid a lot of your response makes no sense to me, leo.

As far as I can tell, the substance of leo's point is the unremarkable scratch-where-no-one's-itching one that St Paul was in no danger of confusing God with Herbert West.

The obscurity comes from the attempt to present this non-insight as simultaneously radical and orthodox.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your own/others' theory about the complete discontinuity of the old and new bodies and the new "dimension" aside, would you be able to address some of my specific responses to you about how you, as you claim, can square such a theory with what St Paul says in the passages I have addressed?

If you read what I wrote, it was not about discontinuity. Quite the reverse.

I have addressed the points you raised and suggested some reading material to help you understand.

I'm sure I should feel terribly grateful, but what would really "help me understand" is if you addressed my actual objections specifically and in detail - like I've done with yours.

You say that your point was "quite the opposite" of insisting on a discontinuity, but that's news to me. What then did you mean to object to in seekingsister's post?

I've been talking about a (transformative, mysterious but real) physical/material continuity between the old and new bodies, to which you have consistently objected, citing Paul in 1 Cor. 15.

But I have answered point by point your gloss on that text (including later verses which you have not addressed) and pointed out repeatedly that if Paul had meant to deny any physical/material continuity between the pre- and post resurrection bodies he chose a funny analogy to do so.

I have also repeatedly asked you if you think Paul would have been completely at ease with the discovery of the existence of Jesus's pre-resurrection mortal body - your theory should commit you to saying it would be something between a matter of indifference to him and an absolute implication of what he believes.

The burden of proof is very much on your side, because - as I see it - your case rests on a very counter-intuitive reading of Paul. Why does it matter so much to you that Paul be read as being in agreement with your/Hick's/Robinson's theory anyway?
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
I'm not sure whether it's satisfying or not to have an explanation for the current hollywood fascination for zombies.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Me neither, I suppose. But then neither am I sure whom you imagine to have furnished such an explanation.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Well, they are a very good representation of what corporeal resurrection would be like with no spirit/soul. It is the intangible that gives something special to the tangible/material, and so one question that arises is - does this soul/spirit need a physical material body at all? The answer is - "yes", if is to "live" materially (for whatever reason), but "no" if immaterial existence is also possible.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm not aware that anyone was talking about "corporeal resurrection ... with no spirit/soul" in the first place. I certainly wasn't.

[ 27. November 2014, 12:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Well, they are a very good representation of what corporeal resurrection would be like with no spirit/soul. It is the intangible that gives something special to the tangible/material, and so one question that arises is - does this soul/spirit need a physical material body at all? The answer is - "yes", if is to "live" materially (for whatever reason), but "no" if immaterial existence is also possible.

Why would you want to live with a third of you 'missing'? And why would the Creator bother to give us a body for 70 years if we are quite capable of living without one?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I have also repeatedly asked

and repeatedly not understood I can't go into any more detail because I think you think literally and are ill-at-ease with metaphor.

Or you are just being obtuse.

To avoid being rude, I am not going to respond to any more seemingly hectoring questioning from you about this.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I "literally" don't know how have the nerve to respond in that way, leo - I'll give you that much.

But I expect that's just one more symptom of my hectoring, unimaginative obtuseness.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Chesterbelloc and leo, that's enough, both of you. Take a step back from the personal sniping or take it to Hell.

/hosting

[ 27. November 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Well, they are a very good representation of what corporeal resurrection would be like with no spirit/soul. It is the intangible that gives something special to the tangible/material, and so one question that arises is - does this soul/spirit need a physical material body at all? The answer is - "yes", if is to "live" materially (for whatever reason), but "no" if immaterial existence is also possible.

Why would you want to live with a third of you 'missing'? And why would the Creator bother to give us a body for 70 years if we are quite capable of living without one?
If you are not in a living body, then by definition you are dead to this world. So the question "why would you want to live without one?" makes no sense. Why would a plastic bag want to be filled with heavy shopping when without that weight it can soar in the wind?

The second question - maybe we have to work hard here to re-find God, and maybe a physical life here this (amongst other things) is a good way of helping spirits who have "turned away" to have a chance to turn back around again? If so, then it is up to each of us individually to make that decision. This is probably off thread-topic, because it's intrinsically difficult to gather hard evidence either way. However, there are quite a few witness reports from NDEs and hypno-regressions.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

Chesterbelloc and leo, that's enough, both of you. Take a step back from the personal sniping or take it to Hell.

/hosting

Message received and understood, Eutychus - my apologies.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Well, they are a very good representation of what corporeal resurrection would be like with no spirit/soul. It is the intangible that gives something special to the tangible/material, and so one question that arises is - does this soul/spirit need a physical material body at all? The answer is - "yes", if is to "live" materially (for whatever reason), but "no" if immaterial existence is also possible.

Why would you want to live with a third of you 'missing'? And why would the Creator bother to give us a body for 70 years if we are quite capable of living without one?
If you are not in a living body, then by definition you are dead to this world. So the question "why would you want to live without one?" makes no sense. Why would a plastic bag want to be filled with heavy shopping when without that weight it can soar in the wind?


I was once stopped by a Hindu 'evangelist' on Oxford Street and in our friendly exchange - he was very nice - the sunject of body and soul was touched upn.

I said that I have a body, a soul and a spirit. To this he replied, 'but what
are you?'

I therefore revised my answer: 'I am body, soul and spirit.'

The analogy of a carrier bag doesn't work because the carrier bag is not part of your shopping. If you were to wrap your shopping in one of the items you had bought - a shirt for example - then it would all be shopping.

My soul and spirit are not merely wrapped up in a 'carrier bag'; my body is as much a part of who I am as my soul. It reflects and expresses my personality perfectly. If my soul were suddenly to migrate to another man's body then it would look very, very odd indeed.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
'I am body, soul and spirit.'
A slight tangent but assuming you're not referring to the Holy Spirit here what is this "spirit" that is supposed to be separate from the soul?

[code]

[ 28. November 2014, 07:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Well, they are a very good representation of what corporeal resurrection would be like with no spirit/soul. It is the intangible that gives something special to the tangible/material, and so one question that arises is - does this soul/spirit need a physical material body at all? The answer is - "yes", if is to "live" materially (for whatever reason), but "no" if immaterial existence is also possible.

Why would you want to live with a third of you 'missing'? And why would the Creator bother to give us a body for 70 years if we are quite capable of living without one?
If you are not in a living body, then by definition you are dead to this world. So the question "why would you want to live without one?" makes no sense. Why would a plastic bag want to be filled with heavy shopping when without that weight it can soar in the wind?


I was once stopped by a Hindu 'evangelist' on Oxford Street and in our friendly exchange - he was very nice - the sunject of body and soul was touched upn.

I said that I have a body, a soul and a spirit. To this he replied, 'but what
are you?'

I therefore revised my answer: 'I am body, soul and spirit.'

The analogy of a carrier bag doesn't work because the carrier bag is not part of your shopping. If you were to wrap your shopping in one of the items you had bought - a shirt for example - then it would all be shopping.

Connective tissue is very like the shopping bag - and the soul. It organises all the cells, links everything together and without it we wouldn't get pas being a structureless blob of cells. But for the most part it becomes invisible - it takes up the space between (and the shape of) the organs it surrounds, it has been anatomically ignored for centuries because it is largely transparent and the filaments so fine that they were thought to be irrelevant. It conducts electrical activity in the body, so it also is an important communication system in addition to the nerves. It organises embryological growth so that you don't develop with fingers in your bottom. Similarly, the soul is invisible, and in the sense you talk about - living here on earth - yes - body, soul are in total what we think we are. However, the point of meditation is that if one starts to observe in detail the phenomena associated with living in a body, it becomes apparent that it's not a totally integrated and inseparable whole. There is a presence that inhabits but is not part of the physical body.

quote:

My soul and spirit are not merely wrapped up in a 'carrier bag'; my body is as much a part of who I am as my soul. It reflects and expresses my personality perfectly. If my soul were suddenly to migrate to another man's body then it would look very, very odd indeed.

Interesting phenomena around organ transplants - e.g. a concert pianist suddenly liking country & western music and beer - after receiving a heart transplanted from a trucker. The memory of previous likes gradually fades over about 6 months. But as a soul, we are something that goes behind preferences for opera vs dolly parton or salads vs burgers. If you go to a very good astrologer, they can give a very accurate picture of your personality, but astrologers still debate whether a person has the personality they have purely because of the birth time/place or whether they chose to be born at a particular time/place because that also reflected their essential qualities. We can't know these things - the questions remain open, not answered.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Interesting phenomena around organ transplants - e.g. a concert pianist suddenly liking country & western music and beer - after receiving a heart transplanted from a trucker.

Um, citation needed (not including Netflix...)
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Interesting phenomena around organ transplants - e.g. a concert pianist suddenly liking country & western music and beer - after receiving a heart transplanted from a trucker.

Um, citation needed (not including Netflix...)
I'm not really up for citation games, but if you can't be bothered to have a look, this will do.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
'I am body, soul and spirit.'
A slight tangent but assuming you're not referring to the Holy Spirit here what is this "spirit" that is supposed to be separate from the soul?

[code]

Hebrews 4 v 12: For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit...


My boy is evidently alive. My soul - my emotions, my will, my personality, is alive. But Paul tells me that without Christ I am 'dead in my trespasses and sins.' It is my unredeemed spirit - the part that relates to God - that is dead; it is the spirit that comes alive in Christ, that receives eternal life and 'awakens' to the grace of God and then floods my whole self with the life of God.

Paul also tells me that I should offer my body as a living sacrifice - that shows that it's not my spirit alone that can now relate to God.

He finally prays that once I have been made holy by the infilling of the Holy Spirit, that my 'whole spirit, soul and body (may) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Thessalonians 5 v 23

To prevent this becoming a needless tangent, it's precisely this - the fact that my body is used in worship and can be part of the sanctification process, that leads us to believe that it's not just a soon-to-be-discarded-on-death 'carrier bag' but will also be redeemed and resurrected as part of the tripartite resurrection experience of eternity.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Interesting phenomena around organ transplants - e.g. a concert pianist suddenly liking country & western music and beer - after receiving a heart transplanted from a trucker.

Um, citation needed (not including Netflix...)
I'm not really up for citation games, but if you can't be bothered to have a look, this will do.
I looked on PubMed and found nothing. Your link to a woo article on a woo website citing other woo authors doesn't really count as a citation.

Peer-reviewed studies anywhere?
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Yes - very easy to dismiss anything that you're not prepared to engage with in curiosity. Full marks for investigative effort.

on the one hand we have someone interpreting the bible to say that the soul and body are so implacably linked that the ONLY way that resurrection can occur is through reuniting a specific soul with a specific physical body. Said body has already rejoined the infinity of creation as its matter is redistributed and taken in by other living beings, It is the rain or snow, it might be part of a mosquito or snow leopard. It might become part of the bacteria that lines somebody's eye socket.

on the other hand we have someone saying that there is no animating force in the body at all other than something that arrives via the nerves. Pray tell how embryos live and self-organise, because their nervous system is not complete until just before birth? What is the organising force?

Clearly, living tissue having something of a life of its own (and the soul having a life of its own that is separable from the body) is not a popular concept.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
'I am body, soul and spirit.'
A slight tangent but assuming you're not referring to the Holy Spirit here what is this "spirit" that is supposed to be separate from the soul?

[code]

Hebrews 4 v 12: For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit...


My boy is evidently alive. My soul - my emotions, my will, my personality, is alive. But Paul tells me that without Christ I am 'dead in my trespasses and sins.' It is my unredeemed spirit - the part that relates to God - that is dead; it is the spirit that comes alive in Christ, that receives eternal life and 'awakens' to the grace of God and then floods my whole self with the life of God.

Paul also tells me that I should offer my body as a living sacrifice - that shows that it's not my spirit alone that can now relate to God.

He finally prays that once I have been made holy by the infilling of the Holy Spirit, that my 'whole spirit, soul and body (may) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Thessalonians 5 v 23

To prevent this becoming a needless tangent, it's precisely this - the fact that my body is used in worship and can be part of the sanctification process, that leads us to believe that it's not just a soon-to-be-discarded-on-death 'carrier bag' but will also be redeemed and resurrected as part of the tripartite resurrection experience of eternity.

Yes - I am happy that the body as we live in it is sacred - it is our gift from God for this specific life.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - very easy to dismiss anything that you're not prepared to engage with in curiosity. Full marks for investigative effort.

The link is full of highly anecdotal evidence and there is no way to distinguish factors other than purely cellular-related ones (e.g. emotional, psychological, or medicinal effects following a transplant operation).

Phrases like
quote:
On some level, our son is still alive
and (eww)
quote:
He’s in me. I know he is in me and he is in love with me. He was always my lover, maybe in another time somewhere
are not exactly redolent with objectivity. Certainly not enough to link the "interesting phenomena" you describe directly to the transplanted organs themselves.

[ 28. November 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Interesting phenomena around organ transplants - e.g. a concert pianist suddenly liking country & western music and beer - after receiving a heart transplanted from a trucker.

Um, citation needed (not including Netflix...)
I'm not really up for citation games, but if you can't be bothered to have a look, this will do.
I looked on PubMed and found nothing. Your link to a woo article on a woo website citing other woo authors doesn't really count as a citation.

Peer-reviewed studies anywhere?

I had my aortic valve replaced with a mechanical substitute last year. I haven't noticed much of a shift in personality towards the unemotionless megalomanical killer cyborg end of the scale. Which I confess comes as something of a disappointment.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - very easy to dismiss anything for which no objective evidence is provided

FIFY.

Point is, if I took the page you linked to as meaning anything, I'd also have to take seriously the reality of alien abduction, teleportation and time travel in the "Philadelphia Experiment", fairies at the end of the garden and mediums talking to the dead. I'd also have to be uncritically gullible.

[ 28. November 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
on the one hand we have someone interpreting the bible to say that the soul and body are so implacably linked that the ONLY way that resurrection can occur is through reuniting a specific soul with a specific physical body. Said body has already rejoined the infinity of creation as its matter is redistributed and taken in by other living beings,

This starts well before death.

Shed skin cells are eaten by little bugs which are in turn eaten by bigger bugs ...

The spleen does a good job of getting rid of tired blood cells, which end up as fertiliser for plants which get eaten by animals.

People will already have atoms, molecules, compounds which were once part of me. I have been shedding cells for over 60 years. These other people who have my former atoms are not me at all.

I can't see why people get the idea that other people having your atoms is a problem. It is no problem.

The theology is that we leave behind our mortal physical bodies and are given new spiritual bodies. Isn't that what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15:44.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I had my aortic valve replaced with a mechanical substitute last year. I haven't noticed much of a shift in personality towards the unemotionless megalomanical killer cyborg end of the scale. Which I confess comes as something of a disappointment.

[Killing me] [Killing me]

Quotes file.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
on the one hand we have someone interpreting the bible to say that the soul and body are so implacably linked that the ONLY way that resurrection can occur is through reuniting a specific soul with a specific physical body. Said body has already rejoined the infinity of creation as its matter is redistributed and taken in by other living beings,

This starts well before death.

Shed skin cells are eaten by little bugs which are in turn eaten by bigger bugs ...

The spleen does a good job of getting rid of tired blood cells, which end up as fertiliser for plants which get eaten by animals.

People will already have atoms, molecules, compounds which were once part of me. I have been shedding cells for over 60 years. These other people who have my former atoms are not me at all.

I can't see why people get the idea that other people having your atoms is a problem. It is no problem.

The theology is that we leave behind our mortal physical bodies and are given new spiritual bodies. Isn't that what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

No, because that's immortality, not RE-surrection.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
'I am body, soul and spirit.'
A slight tangent but assuming you're not referring to the Holy Spirit here what is this "spirit" that is supposed to be separate from the soul?

[code]

Hebrews 4 v 12: For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit...


My boy is evidently alive. My soul - my emotions, my will, my personality, is alive. But Paul tells me that without Christ I am 'dead in my trespasses and sins.' It is my unredeemed spirit - the part that relates to God - that is dead; it is the spirit that comes alive in Christ, that receives eternal life and 'awakens' to the grace of God and then floods my whole self with the life of God.

Paul also tells me that I should offer my body as a living sacrifice - that shows that it's not my spirit alone that can now relate to God.

He finally prays that once I have been made holy by the infilling of the Holy Spirit, that my 'whole spirit, soul and body (may) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Thessalonians 5 v 23

To prevent this becoming a needless tangent, it's precisely this - the fact that my body is used in worship and can be part of the sanctification process, that leads us to believe that it's not just a soon-to-be-discarded-on-death 'carrier bag' but will also be redeemed and resurrected as part of the tripartite resurrection experience of eternity.

Life is given by the Holy Spirit, and not just to men but to all things, but I'm still not sure the examples you provide prove that man is made of more than body and soul, that he also has this separate thing called a "spirit", something different from the soul. I was always under the impression that the traditional Christian belief was that man is a duality (body and soul) in a unity.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
'Traditional'? Is that as opposed to Biblical?
Did you read the Bible passages?

Sometimes thinking that becomes 'traditional' over time is not strictly the truth - Reformation, anyone?

One way of looking at it is that all creatures have a physical presence - a body; all animals have emotions, instrincts, life and consciousness - a soul; humans also have a spirit - it's what makes us in the image of God, able to communicate with him, to worship, to pray.

[ 28. November 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'Traditional'? Is that as opposed to Biblical?
Did you read the Bible passages?

Sometimes thinking that becomes 'traditional' over time is not strictly the truth - Reformation, anyone?

One way of looking at it is that all creatures have a physical presence - a body; all animals have emotions, instrincts, life and consciousness - a soul; humans also have a spirit - it's what makes us in the image of God, able to communicate with him, to worship, to pray.

Protestantism is a perculiarly western problem. I'm just not aware that the passages you provide were ever understood in the way you suggest. You might think that unscriptural. Alternatively it could be that you just don't understand it properly because I'm not sure it's quite as clear as you think. Given the choice I go with the traditional view, that spirit either refers to the incorporeal nature of the soul and/or the giver of all life, the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'Traditional'? Is that as opposed to Biblical?
Did you read the Bible passages?

Sometimes thinking that becomes 'traditional' over time is not strictly the truth - Reformation, anyone?

One way of looking at it is that all creatures have a physical presence - a body; all animals have emotions, instrincts, life and consciousness - a soul; humans also have a spirit - it's what makes us in the image of God, able to communicate with him, to worship, to pray.

Protestantism is a perculiarly western problem. I'm just not aware that the passages you provide were ever understood in the way you suggest. You might think that unscriptural. Alternatively it could be that you just don't understand it properly because I'm not sure it's quite as clear as you think. Given the choice I go with the traditional view, that spirit either refers to the incorporeal nature of the soul and/or the giver of all life, the Holy Spirit.
I would be interested therefore in your exegesis of the two verses I quoted - the one about dividing soul and spirit, and the one about the body, soul and spirit being preserved blameless.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
]Connective tissue is very like the shopping bag - and the soul....

Oh pray don't tell me my connective tissue has anything to do with the soul--given my genetic condition I would be forced to believe my soul was in very poor condition.

come to think of it...
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
The connective tissue is amongst other things the electrical layer, LambC - I would think that the soul is subtle enough to have no need for electrical circuits :-)
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'Traditional'? Is that as opposed to Biblical?
Did you read the Bible passages?

Sometimes thinking that becomes 'traditional' over time is not strictly the truth - Reformation, anyone?

One way of looking at it is that all creatures have a physical presence - a body; all animals have emotions, instrincts, life and consciousness - a soul; humans also have a spirit - it's what makes us in the image of God, able to communicate with him, to worship, to pray.

Protestantism is a perculiarly western problem. I'm just not aware that the passages you provide were ever understood in the way you suggest. You might think that unscriptural. Alternatively it could be that you just don't understand it properly because I'm not sure it's quite as clear as you think. Given the choice I go with the traditional view, that spirit either refers to the incorporeal nature of the soul and/or the giver of all life, the Holy Spirit.
I would be interested therefore in your exegesis of the two verses I quoted - the one about dividing soul and spirit, and the one about the body, soul and spirit being preserved blameless.
Am I being too simplistic? It seems quite simple - the soul contains the spirit, the body contains the soul. each is like salt dissolved in water to the next one. On death we return to being "only" souls, and souls are vehicles for the immortal spirit. They are all part of creation, and in reality, only the spiritual world is truly "real", and is causal to all the rest. But since we need to be embedded in another couple of layers to function physically here on this physical plane, we have to work a bit harder to live in conscious connection to God. The physical and soul levels are truly "images" of the spirit, and of God, but I don't think that souls are constrained to having to take on a physical form.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Soul, spirit, mind, heart, character, will, personality, these are not words that we or biblical writers use according to definitions. You just grab whichever one looks as if it might do the job for you today.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I had my aortic valve replaced with a mechanical substitute last year. I haven't noticed much of a shift in personality towards the unemotionless megalomanical killer cyborg end of the scale. Which I confess comes as something of a disappointment.

[Smile] I too had my aortic valve replaced last year, but with a 'bovine tissue' valve; fortunately, no sign of any changes in characteristics!!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Am I being too simplistic? It seems quite simple - the soul contains the spirit, the body contains the soul. each is like salt dissolved in water to the next one. On death we return to being "only" souls, and souls are vehicles for the immortal spirit. They are all part of creation, and in reality, only the spiritual world is truly "real", and is causal to all the rest. But since we need to be embedded in another couple of layers to function physically here on this physical plane, we have to work a bit harder to live in conscious connection to God. The physical and soul levels are truly "images" of the spirit, and of God, but I don't think that souls are constrained to having to take on a physical form.

That is an extremely off view - and is not Biblical, as far as I can see.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's an utterly untransferrable, inchoate, subjective, inner projected view that could work as poetry. Like all narratives including The Books. Chaos trying to make order of itself.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Am I being too simplistic? It seems quite simple - the soul contains the spirit, the body contains the soul. each is like salt dissolved in water to the next one. On death we return to being "only" souls, and souls are vehicles for the immortal spirit. They are all part of creation, and in reality, only the spiritual world is truly "real", and is causal to all the rest. But since we need to be embedded in another couple of layers to function physically here on this physical plane, we have to work a bit harder to live in conscious connection to God. The physical and soul levels are truly "images" of the spirit, and of God, but I don't think that souls are constrained to having to take on a physical form.

That is an extremely off view - and is not Biblical, as far as I can see.
I haven't seen a biblical quotation yet that is contradictory to it.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Can you explain the phrase, 'On death we return to being "only" souls'?

'Return'? That implies that we came from being a soul, took on a temporary body, and that the dead have now returned to that former disembodied state.
Is that what you are implying?

Further to that I would deny that the soul is immortal until it is regenerate, along with the sanctified spirit and body.

[ 29. November 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That is an extremely off view - and is not Biblical, as far as I can see.

The Bible is far easier understand on a compassionate and spiritual level if such views can be drawn from it.

I personally find it hard to read the Bible without dismissing several parts of it as being some kind of vindictive rant.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That is an extremely off view - and is not Biblical, as far as I can see.

The Bible is far easier understand on a compassionate and spiritual level if such views can be drawn from it.

I personally find it hard to read the Bible without dismissing several parts of it as being some kind of vindictive rant.

From a compassionate, pastoral POV, all I can say is what the Bible teaches and people really want: they want to be 'themselves' after death. They want to be complete, they want to be recognisably them.

Why would God take the trouble to design us so that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made' if this body is to be discarded? Modern thinking sees us as much more a whole than previously thought. The body is not just a carrier bag; it's very much a part of who I am and what I want to be.

The doctrine of resurrection is much more pastorally compassionate and satisfying than the doctrine of immortal souls flitting about in some cloudy, echoing sky.

I want to be 'me'. Resurrection of the whole person provides for that.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you explain the phrase, 'On death we return to being "only" souls'?

'Return'? That implies that we came from being a soul, took on a temporary body, and that the dead have now returned to that former disembodied state.
Is that what you are implying?

Yes - that's correct - we come, we pass through, we return again - birth and death are transitions. We start as a soul, we embody/incarnate into this wonderful body, and then we let go of our physical body again, and its components return to the act of continuous physical creation.

quote:

Further to that I would deny that the soul is immortal until it is regenerate, along with the sanctified spirit and body.

Yes - Spirit is immortal

If you want "Your body" back you will have to define what that is... for instance, you can't survive without about 90% of the DNA in your body NOT being human... it's bacterial colonies - maybe 7000 species of them. As I said, one function of meditation is to explore the human condition from the inside in detail, and the end point that process gets to is that the physical body is experienced not being equivalent to the "I". It has several attributes that are confuse-able with "I", including the fact that it runs and generates much of the emotion that we are aware of. Love is an exception to that. Observation in detail unpicks that fallacy of I=body.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That is an extremely off view - and is not Biblical, as far as I can see.

The Bible is far easier understand on a compassionate and spiritual level if such views can be drawn from it.

I personally find it hard to read the Bible without dismissing several parts of it as being some kind of vindictive rant.

From a compassionate, pastoral POV, all I can say is what the Bible teaches and people really want: they want to be 'themselves' after death. They want to be complete, they want to be recognisably them.

Why would God take the trouble to design us so that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made' if this body is to be discarded? Modern thinking sees us as much more a whole than previously thought. The body is not just a carrier bag; it's very much a part of who I am and what I want to be.

The doctrine of resurrection is much more pastorally compassionate and satisfying than the doctrine of immortal souls flitting about in some cloudy, echoing sky.

I want to be 'me'. Resurrection of the whole person provides for that.

Maybe it's not so cloudy or empty and echoing? I would say that the glory of "returning home" at death is far more compassionate. I guess each person has a different taste for how they would prefer it - we'll find out whether the preferences were correct when the time comes.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
So then you believe in reincarnation.
Fair enough, it's a widespread belief and I respect the sincerity but it's not Christian.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So we won't get bodies again?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So we won't get bodies again?

Well you might, but if you're not a good boy it might be the body of a slug!

It won't be 'you' though, will it.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
What are you going to do if you are wrong about what happens after you die?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What are you going to do if you are wrong about what happens after you die?

Demand a refund?

Moo
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As long as it's a glorified, transcendent slug and I remember me mum and dad and our Sarah and the budgies and Jack Russels and me Nan and they all remember me, I don't mind if it's not me.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As long as it's a glorified, transcendent slug and I remember me mum and dad and our Sarah and the budgies and Jack Russels and me Nan and they all remember me, I don't mind if it's not me.

It would be OK if they were all slugs - what would you do if a slug-hating relative put salt on you?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That would be my mother.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That would be my mother.

Oh dear. LOL?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Yeah, she'd literally have cataplexy at my Dad and me shooting snails on the ha-ha, but would salt slugs.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Many of us our cool with the idea of ressurection after death, even those not ascribed to the Church and it's teaching.
It's that damn damnation bit that puts the mockers on it. Some go to a good place for all eternity, some go to a bad place for all eternity? For reasons that are, at best, clear as mud. I don't want to derail the thread but, you know... WTF?

The information provided in some fire an' brim Gospel passages and Revelation is sufficient to make me seriously question, and pretty much reject the doctrine of Heaven and Hell. It still doesn't make me lose faith in The Light, that seems to be something different.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0