|
As you, and perhaps others interpret Scripture, vis
a vis the 'soul' you are COMPLETELY GREEK IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING. Can I get an
AMEN?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 20, 2005 08:33
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation
Blind guides. This must be where 'G'
gets his inspiration also as Jeeves makes mention of all the same Geeks -
oophs!
I mean Greeks. Studying the physical brain to
try and find the soul is on the same level as getting on Sputnik and
flying out into space expecting to see God... and excuse me - The idea of
an immortal soul arises from Genesis 2:7 which is NOT Greek
thought... Then he wades through the hodgepodge called tradition
(that makes God's Word of no effect) and quotes what Origen thought (that
is the guy who castrated himself because he didn't understand that the
power emanating from the cross could free him from lust) and mixes it
with a little Plato and Augustine. This may be where Jeeves gets his
wisdom but he can have it. Jeeves doesn't know his Bible. Soul does not
mean body, mind, and spirit
just becaue the oldtimers used to call people
souls. Soul means soul. Mind means mind. and spirit means
spirit. Spirit and soul can be divided by God's Word... and both
are different from the physical body.
What a waste of time that could be redeemed by
spending it in the presence and counsel of God. jt
(1) Beliefs - Whatever happened to the soul? (by Malcolm Jeeves)
First, I am suggesting that statements about the physical nature of human
beings made from the perspective of
biology or neuroscience refer to exactly the same
entity as statements made about the soulish or spiritual nature of persons
from the point review of theology or religious traditions. This disavows the
suggestion that human science speaks about a physical being whilst theology
and religion speak about a non-material essence or soul. Perhaps a better way
of saying this is that when we
talk of souls we are talking about whole persons: body, mind and
spirit. One might say "we are souls, we don't have
souls". Such a view contrasts sharply with views of
soul and body in, for example, Socrates discourse on death. He wrote "Does not
death mean that the body comes to exist by itself, separated from the soul,
and that the soul exists by herself, separated from the body? What is death
but that?� (Socrates, Plato's Phaedo, Fourth century BC). The idea of an immortal soul arises not
from the Bible but from Greek thought. In
the end, Plato records that Socrates lived out his own teaching by drinking
the poison hemlock in the serene conviction that his immortal soul would now
find release from its bodily prison. For Socrates and Plato, bodily death was
a welcome liberation. Indeed, it was actually not dying.
In the centuries after Christ, theologians combined this Greek doctrine of the immortal soul with biblical
images of human nature. When Origen, a third century platonic philosopher, became the father
of theology, he built into Christian doctrine Plato's idea of the
soul. In the early fifth century, Augustine thought Plato to be the most bright in all
of philosophy. And in the sixteenth century, John Calvin, who was heavily
influenced by both Plato and Augustine, declared that Plato alone "rightly
affirmed" the immortal soul that "lies hidden in man separate from body".
Second, whilst scriptural teachings about the image of God do not, by their nature
address directly any dualism-physicalism distinction, there is at the same
time nothing in their teachings that necessitates belief in an ontologically distinct soul. What is clear from
Scripture is that the image of God is primarily relational.
That is, it implies a capacity to enter into a covenant relationship with
God and with other humans. Humans are considered unique from the rest of God's
creation primarily due to their capacity for covenant relationships.
Third, any ideas we have about the nature of persons ultimately affect the
way we treat one another. What we understand about human nature impacts on our
ethics. Are there any consequences of the views I am putting forward which
might start us on a slippery slope of ethical or moral decline? In the past,
dualist views have certainly sustained a sense of caution about what can
appropriately be done to besouled bodies of other individuals. If an immmortal
soul is present, doesn't this force one to continue to honour and love the
seriously mentally defective or demented? The medical ethicist Stephen Post,
whilst recognizing that in the past dualism has played a protective role
within ethical systems, suggests that the fundamental biblical motive for the
care of those who have little ability to reciprocate is not to be found in a
dualist consideration of the soul of the other person. Rather, he argues, it
emerges from the ethos of bestowed love and from the narratives of Jesus
amongst the most vulnerable. Thus a narrative of love and consideration to
helpless, dying or deficient persons is sufficient motive, and perhaps a more
purely biblical motive, than the consideration of a separate substantial soul.
(2) Practices-The Mind-Brain link and the Christian Life
By emphasising, in the way that I have, the unity of the human person, I
am, by implication, suggesting that the
spiritual dimension to a person's life is no more
immune to changes in the brain than other aspects of mental life. Such a
suggestion, at times, seems to surprise and trouble, some Christian people. I
do not believe that it should and may I now give you three brief examples to
illustrate why I think this is the case,
There are a number of well documented cases of what happens to devout
Christians when they develop Alzheimer's disease. The psychologist professor
Glenn Weaver documents the spiritual pilgrimage of a devout Christian lady who
after a life of regular attendance at church services where she was well known
as a gentle Christian, with a deep concern for her fellow
Christians , she began to develop the
tell tale symptoms of increasing forgetfulness. She struggled with the problem
in the way that many people do but she was fighting a losing
battle. She found that she could no longer remember
the names of those she wanted to pray for and her letters became verbose and lost much of their
content. This in turn made her increasingly anxious;
and her anxiety led onto depression and the classical textbook description of
developing Alzheimer's disease became evident.
Glenn Weaver, however, points out that in her case there was much more to
her experience than the usual textbook account. She was deeply troubled about her relationship with God. She
felt she was personally responsible for falling away from her former close
walk with God ,and that she was deserting her friends through her friendship
and prayers. She concluded that because of her lack of
faith God was setting her aside because she was no longer fit for his service.
As she continued she became more confused and began to lose control of her
natural processes and away from the security provided by her home and husband,
she would wander about violating the commands of her nurses and then
describing bizarre sexual disturbances in an explicit way. She came to believe she'd committed sins that
provoked God's wrath and the continued deterioration of her condition and the
fact that the doctors could not help her confirmed her in her beliefs.
Eventually she lost all interest in her daily
devotions and prayer. The main point here is quite simple; with neural changes there
are psychological consequences and these in turn affect spiritual awareness.
Such is the unity of the human person.
My second example is the attempts to explore the association of
some forms of religiosity and the
occurrence of mystical experiences with their possible neural
substrates, an attempt which has continued from time
to time over the last thirty years. Many who write on the topic begin with the
apostle Paul's Damascus Road experience and then quickly move on to talk about
the religiosity of the typical epileptic
patient, something which has been recognised since at
least 1838 by Esquirol.
The debate will continue as more evidence becomes available. However, as
one recent study by David Tucker and his associates has reported, "the data
indicate that hyper-religiosity is not a consistent interictal trait of
individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy. Further, although hyper-religiosity
and temporal lobe epilepsy may co-occur in a few individuals, it does not
appear to be a direct causal relationship between repeated seizure discharge
in the temporal lobes and hyper-religiosity."
Third, I suggest that a return to a more holistic view of the human person,
prompted in part by recent developments in neuroscience has helpful
implications, I believe, for understanding the spiritual distresses that are
well documented in the experiences of Christian leaders and from which we all,
from time to time, suffer . It means that the spiritual
dimension to our personality is not immune to the changes in our biological and neural substrates. I have already given you one example of this in the specific
instance of Altzheimers disease.
The psychiatrist Gaius Davies has documented how some of the outstanding
men and women of God whom all acknowledge have been greatly used by him are
also found on close study often to be those who have endured significant
swings in the immediacy of their felt awareness of the presence and power of
God. Davies shows how in the case of some of these people it is possible for
us, with the benefit of hindsight, and informed by the advances in psychiatry
at the end of the 20th-century, to be fairly sure that some of their
experiences were pathological in the sense that today we would classify them
in accepted categories of psychological illness.
Some were obsessive compulsive, some were manic depressive, some struggled
with specific phobias, and so on. Among those studied by Gaius Davies were
John Bunyan and Amy Carmichael, William Cowper, CS Lewis, Martin Luther,
Gerard Manley Hopkins and J. B. Phillips . The
relevance of his studies to us today is that there are those amongst them
whose illness probably had a significant biological and biochemical etiology
and these would include Luther, Cowper,
Shaftesbury and Phillips. Luther was probably an obsessive
compulsive/depressive; Cowper suffered six serious depressive breakdowns and
made several suicide attempts; Shaftesbury was probably a manic/depressive
suffering from a bi-polar affective disorder (he reported how his moods swung
from �wild joy� to �cruel despondency�. Phillips was probably an
obsessive-compulsive. Despite all these things they
triumphed to our lasting benefit. We do indeed �have this treasure in earthen
vessels�.
Those of you, who like me enjoyed the
fascinating BBC television series by Susan Greenfield on the
brain, may remember that in her first lecture she made
several references to the religious or
spiritual dimension to a person's life and
personality. It is interesting that following her presentation there were a
number of letters to the press complaining that she was attacking religion and
the spiritual dimension to life.
While we can understand the sensitivity, for some people, of singling out
religion for reference in this way, a little thought would quickly indicate
that it was unjustified. To be more specific, Susan Greenfield could as easily
have indicated that in due time, using appropriate brain imaging techniques,
we may be able to say a little more about which systems in the brain are most active when she is talking about brains and their properties.
No one, I think, would have then gone on to argue that because we may
understand something of brain mechanisms underlying her fascinating
presentations, therefore, we could give no validity to the brain story that
she was telling us. In a word,
understanding something about the brain mechanisms underlying mental life
tells us nothing, one way or the other about the truth claims of the
statements being made at the time.
To be more specific because this is an important point, she could as easily
showed us a picture of Einstein's brain
drawing attention to some of its unusual features,
but this would have told us nothing at
all, one way or the other about the truth of his theories. What I believe is much more relevant is that by welcoming every new bit of information about the
neural substrates of spirituality, should give us
insights which will enable us to understand ourselves better, but more
importantly will enable us to show more sympathy and compassion to those who
may be going through what in past centuries used to be called " the dark night of the soul".
His most recent book is 'From Cells to Souls -
and Beyond' (editor) with an essay by Alan Torrance entitled 'What is a
Person?' It addresses the important issue of the
mind/brain as well as the rampant dualism and
gnosticism one sees in society at large, the believing community and,
on TT.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 19, 2005 21:49
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Saved
- Salvation
"Portraits of Human
Nature: Scientific & Theological" by Malcolm Jeeves. Anyway, I
think that is what you are talking about. I was thinking I had sent
one of his books home with you. Is that right?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:56
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saved -
Salvation
Bill , what was the
title and author of that CD from the pyschiatrist we listened to some on
the trip to Miss?
|
