Debbie wrote: > 1) Yes, I agree without hesitation that there > is such a thing as spirit. There are beings who > are not material.
Good. You are not a Sadducee, nor are you sad, you see. Nor are you a pure scientist. Debbie wrote: > But my answer would be less ready if you are asking > whether I believe in a "part" of a human being which > is the spirit, distinct from other "parts", separated at death. > My thinking on this is in flux, but I am currently considering > a No. Ok. So you reject the Platonic view and accept the Aristolean viewpoint. You depart from the Pharisees on this point, but don't go so far as the Sadducees and the scientists. Debbie wrote: > I take no support for its existence from the passage in Revelation > 6, given that this is a vision containing plenty of symbolic imagery. So... interpret the imagery and what do you have? Or are you saying that the imagery makes it impossible to know? My position is that the interpretation of the imagery speaks to us of the nature of the spirit after death. What is your interpretation that causes you to reject my interpretation, or are you using this as a cop-out? Debbie wrote: > As for God breathing into Adam at creation, this doesn't > prove anything about the separate existence of a spirit. Maybe not anything about separate existence, but it does indicate that the body requires something more than the physical mechanics to function. Debbie wrote: > Nor do I think parables such as the one about Lazarus and > the rich man are good foundation for this sort of thing, as it > is likely that Jesus drew on familiar conventional ideas in > which to couch his main point, whether those ideas were > accurate or not. Well, first off, I do not believe that this story is a fictious parable. I believe it was a literal event, and there are many reasons I could share about that if you would like to hear them. Secondly, even if it was a fictitious parable, Jesus would not draw upon something false to teach us. It is not his nature. Have you ever read Josephus's account of Hades that he wrote for the Romans? It is very similar to this story from Luke but with much more detail. It hardly seems likely that Jesus would draw upon this Hebrew concept if it were not true. That would be like him talking about Lilith as if she were true, knowing full well that she was not. Debbie wrote: > And I think it is possible to read other biblical references to > a person's spirit without having to posit a distinct entity. The question isn't whether one HAS to posit a distinct entity called spirit, but whether or not such a view is true. We can try hard to explain away a great many things, but what is the most parsimonious understanding that we receive from the Scriptures? Debbie wrote: > I do wonder about the activity of Christ between his death and > his resurrection, about which a little is said in Scripture, and > Moses and Elijah visible at the transifguration (though I can think > of different ways to understand this; the time/eternity thing enters > into it again), and some other things. Surely you understand the concept of Occam's razor, do you not? You are really stretching it on these cases you mention. When a view starts becoming very complex in order to be preserved, it is likely that the view is incorrect. What about demons? I consider demons to be spirits without bodies. What about you? I see them as distinct from angels in that they lack a body whereas angels have a body. How do you view it? Debbie wrote: > The idea that there IS a distinct thing called the spirit is not > altogether implausible to me, but if that is true, I don't think > the spirit is "extricable" from the rest of a living person in > any meaningful way; i.e., it is impossible to isolate things > done by the spirit. I don't have a whole lot of trouble doing that, and Paul seems to have no trouble in Romans 7. I do admit, however, that it takes some spiritual discernment. I don't expect natural or carnal people to do it easily, but it should not be much of a problem for someone who walks in the spirit. Debbie wrote: > There are no "spiritual" vs "physical" acts; Sure there are. For example, eating is a physical act; prayer is a spiritual act. Worship is a spiritual act; lust is a physical act. Debbie wrote: > we can never somehow leave spirit or body out of any behaviour. Sometimes, in visions, the body is pretty much isolated. Sometimes, in carnal acts of wickedness, the spirit is left out. Debbie wrote: > The body would not be a container for the spirit, and their > relationship wouldn't consist in merely "affecting" one another, > but of some more fundamental interdependence. The bodiless > state between death and the resurrection would then be some > kind of aberration, de-struction--with the spirit no longer intact > either. (It's even possible that there are body and spirit, inseparable, > dying together--a sort of combination of the two views.) I guess > I have a hard time thinking of a human being as an assemblage of > different kinds of things, each having its own "life". A human is one > kind of thing, one life. (But then, you are familiar with my revulsion > for dualism generally.) There certainly is a degree of interdependence; hence, the need for the resurrection, but I think your view of separation is skewed much too far toward the Hebrew Sadducean viewpoint. You have bought into the Greek Aristolean viewpoint hook line and sinker (IMO). This is the popular view of the new modern orthodoxy, but it really is a viewpoint pushed by the influence of science upon religion rather than an adherence to Scripture and the words of prophets and apostles. Debbie wrote: > 2) Your second question is part of the problem I have with the > "distinct spirit" view. As soon as you regard the body and spirit > as separate, you have the body being the direct product of sexual > reproduction, its features determined genetically, while the spirit > has to be snuck into the body at fertilization by God, who creates > it specially and directly. Not necessarily. Dualism does not necessitate that the spirit is "snuck into the body" either at fertilization or sometime afterward. Personally, I do not believe this happens at fertilization. Some of the church fathers viewed the sperm as containing a homunculus which contained the spirit and soul being passed on from Adam to the future descendants. In other words, the spirit and soul was viewed as being inherited from Adam. While I do not hold this viewpoint, I recognize others in history have. Debbie wrote: > That means you have a sinless, uncorrupted, spirit thwarted > by a sinful, corrupt, diseased body, with each person's spirit > undergoing its own individual Fall (or maybe resisting it in > some cases?); Not its own individual fall, because the influence of the flesh creates a state of ignorance which makes the transgression different. Understanding the spirit and its position in man does not mean that the spirit is completely independent. Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to describe the function of an organ in the body like the brain to someone, and then they counter that such is ridiculous because nobody has ever removed a brain from a person and watched it function on its own independently from the body. Debbie wrote: > I don't believe that reflects reality. If I take the view outlined > in the first two paragraphs of (1) above, however, it obviates > question (2). Sure, it obviates the question, but it looks like a cop-out to me. It is like the Creationist who hollers, "God's word says God created it, so there is nothing concerning evolution that is worth talking about." Anti-researchers use this kind of tactic all the time. People ask why, someone says, "God did it that way, end of story." Eliminating questions does not enhance understanding. Concerning the idea that this model does not reflect reality: I disagree. For example, people have a natural understanding of infants being in an innocent state. The concept of a flesh inherited that is evil in close contact with a spirit which originally is not evil helps explain this very well. In fact, any truth to be found in Pelagianism can be merged with the truth found in the concept of original sin. The conflict that exists between these two models disappears. Debbie wrote: > 3) Similarly with this question. If I don't think in terms of two distinct > entities of body and spirit, I can say that we genetically inherit from > our parents all kinds of traits manifesting themselves in the way we > relate to God. (And that's not to say that all traits are unalterable, > or that we have no choice or responsibility when it comes to what > to cultivate, or that God can't heal all manner of conditions.) If you > regard body and spirit as distinct entities, I don't see how you can > have spirit-traits (whatever those are) inherited via physical genes. It certainly seems possible to me, but my instincts tell me this would not be the case so I will not argue otherwise. Debbie wrote: > So in your case, your answer couldn't be other than No. I don't think that is the only possibility. Distinctiveness does not necessarily mean that they are not associated from an earlier time, perhaps even in the loins of Adam. I don't think that is the case, but I perceive it as a possibility, howbeit, a remote possibility. Debbie wrote: > Of course, we also acquire all kinds of attitudes and behaviours > from our parents (and others) by learning, and there continues > to be debate about what is inherited and what is learned. > We are formed as well, cumulatively, by our tiniest experiences > and choices. I don't think it's necessary to posit a spirit in order > to explain the differences between twins. I strongly disagree about the twin issue. I am an identical twin myself, so this is an area of special interest to me. In comparison to fraternal twins, identical twins should be much more alike "spiritually" if their spirits were determined by genetic inheritance. Debbie wrote: > I am keeping this file (along with others!) wide open. Both views > leave certain things without satisfactory explanation--at least so far. I think this is only because you have been indoctrinated with a superficial holistic model. Without being more reductionistic in your approach, there will always remain many unanswered questions for you. Debbie wrote: > I grew up with the spirit+body view and it affects the way > I understand a lot of things; departing from that understanding > entails a fair bit of reintegrating, and that takes some study and > prayer and "percolation time". But that shouldn't and doesn't put > me off. I would like to repeat here what someone else said not > long ago on TT (Bill, I think), that quite often when we contrast > simple with complicated, we are really only contrasting familiar > with unfamiliar--like the grammar of our mother tongue with that > of another language. Sometimes, this is true, because a new model requires a different set of assumptions. Sometimes we only alter a few of the assumptions and do not realize that we are not really considering the full alternative. Debbie wrote: > I should add that "spiritual" is used in opposition to both "physical" > and "carnal" (or "natural", "unspiritual", or various other terms). > These oppositions shouldn't be mixed up. Some TTers who shall > remain nameless mix them up fairly often. It doesn't help that some > Englishes use "flesh" for the counterpart of "spirit" in both oppositions. I'm not sure what you just said, except that there is a terminology problem in discussing this issue. I agree with that. Debbie wrote: > P.S.: Note that, in any case, I don't believe in three distinct entities > per person! (I hope there would be a good "binding agent" for the > soul and spirit after death!) Occam would turn over in his grave. > Not that anybody here cares about that. What do you mean by "distinct entities"? Concerning the physical body, are the kidneys, heart, and lungs distinct entities? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
