Greek Islands
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-tips.html
A critic of Christianity and theism can make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of the human soul/spirit as it cannot be shown to exist empirically (with the five senses).
According to John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger there exists a debate within the scientific community on whether or not human beings are entirely physical, or if they could have an immaterial nature. Burr and Goldinger (1976: 319). The existence of the human spirit is not empirically verifiable, and its existence from a Christian perspective would primarily rely on Scripture. Thiessen (1956: 227). Richard Taylor writes that the idea of an immortal soul cannot be seen as necessarily false. Taylor (1969)(1976: 334). However, he reasons that if there is difficulty explaining how the body can do certain things, it would be no less difficult explaining how a soul could do certain things. Taylor (1969)(1976: 336). For Clarence Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived. Darrow (1928)(1973: 261). Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore I reason God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter or scientific experiment.
M.E. Osterhaven explains that in the Hebrew Bible, spirit is at times the Hebrew word ‘ruah’ and means breath of air or wind. This breath gives human beings life and rationality. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). He writes that in the New Testament sometimes the terms spirit and soul are used synonymously, at times the spirit is viewed as spiritual and the soul is understood as natural. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Osterhaven explains that the idea of soul can be used for a living being, person or spiritual nature, and although the term can be used interchangeably with spirit some difference in explaining the two have occurred in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Osterhaven (1996: 1036). Thiessen provides a possible explanation that the soul would feature human imagination, memory and understanding, while the spirit features the reason, conscience, and will. Thiessen (1956: 227). This is speculation of course, but I am not convinced that there is definitive difference between the human soul and spirit.
For Strong. the most often documented word used for spirit in the Hebrew Bible is ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh. Strong (1986: 142). The most common word used in the Hebrew Bible for soul is ‘nephesh’ neh’-fesh. Strong (1986: 105). The most used word for spirit in the New Testament is ‘pneuma’ pnyoo’mah. Strong (1986: 78). The most common world for soul is ‘psuche’ psoo-khay. Strong (1986: 106).
As with a belief in God, who is spirit, a Judeo-Christian belief in the soul/spirit is not based in empiricism or scientific explanation, but in the religious philosophy and faith presented by God through numerous scribes, prophets and apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. The existence of God as the ultimate spirit was revealed and the fact that persons are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27) means that human beings as well share this spiritual nature, although finite in comparison to God’s infinite nature. To insist that only empirical knowledge is true knowledge is to abandon all supernatural revelation that claims that there is a spiritual reality. Although I reason that much of ancient religion is mythology, and much of what in modern times is claimed to be spiritual is natural and not supernatural, I do not reason that all supernatural occurrences in human history are mythology and/or fraudulent. There is a historical consistency of the Biblical message and actual historically documented persons provided information that supported the notion of a spiritual realm and the existence of the human soul/spirit. As well, I reason that since the Bible discusses the supernatural powers of darkness, that some assumed supernatural occurrences within the occult, Hinduism and other non-Christian religions are indeed of a spiritual nature, although from Satanic forces and not God.
BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
TAYLOR, RICHARD (1969)(1976) ‘How to Bury the Mind-Body Problem’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, April, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
These scans are from Strong's, and I realize that they are not near perfect. I am scanning a huge volume with a small scanner.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm
Dr. Habermas discusses the existence of the human spirit in the context of Near Death Experiences.
Though these discussions you present here are going on at the academic level, I would be inclined to think that the average person would acknowledge the existence of a spiritual element in their lives. That being said, some would probably have a spiritual element confused with an emotional element. Still, even in my experience interacting with non-believers, most have seemed to think that there was something "more" and even if they didn't know what it was, they felt there was something.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think you are correct in your analysis of the typical human view on spiritual aspects of life. A critic could of course state this is purely emotional and speculative.
ReplyDeleteChristian spiritually is of course beyond this, or should be when it is presented properly theologically. I am not against emotions, but Christian spirituality should be concerned with the totality of spirituality which includes intellect and emotion, in my view.
Cheers. Jake.:)
Oh if you can't see something it must not be real, so lets just dismiss it!
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how something outside of our senses, is often dismissed by that very basic notion. Yet what does Scripture say about faith not being by sight?
A different scenario we can all relate to is pain. Someone can say they are in terrible pain, yet if they are amongst people it may very well not be observable just the degree that their body is being slain by pain. The people with them may well summmize, they are not suffering pain to a very great degree, based on what they see. Pain is a word to them, whereas to the person suffering it, it is an experience, if its outside most usual experiences of pain. If a person is less able to cope with lesser pain than the first person, and sits wailing and crying about the pain in their body. The people with them, will think their pain must be great. While the first person, who has more pain than the person wailing and crying, yet the first person has a quiet countenance will be dismissed, because their pain or the affects of it are not visible like the second persons are who sits wailing and crying. Again, what we have seen, we have judged erronously, because pain isn't something you can see or measure, so we can dismiss the first person who bears it quietly without complaint.
Not being able to see something, is the big factor for dismissing lots of things. The existence of a soul or Spirit, being treated likewise seems a certainty, for some folks to dismiss it that way, because of its invisiblity.
(sorry I realized I'd used the wrong comment box way too late!)
Not being able to see something, is the big factor for dismissing lots of things. The existence of a soul or Spirit, being treated likewise seems a certainty, for some folks to dismiss it that way, because of its invisiblity.
ReplyDeleteMany persons are empiricists and think religious spirituality is questionable or bogus. I think empirical evidence is important, but there is also philosophical truth that can be found through reason and there is revealed supernatural truth. These types of philosophical and theological truths are not empirically, scientifically provable. Christ's resurrection was empirically viewed by persons and documented in Scripture, but Christ's deity is certain via his resurrection and he claimed to be eternal (John 8:58) and therefore is God. Strictly speaking the critic could state that Christ's resurrection if accepted as true does not mean he can be scientifically proven as God as he could be an alien, for example, and so God remains impossible to prove empirically, although philosophically and theologically the deity of Christ is certain. We know by using philosophy and theology that Christ is God and not an alien.
There is such a thing as empirical theology which examines theological concepts through questionnaires and statistics. I have prepared two of these questionnaires, one for my MPhil, and one for my PhD.
(sorry I realized I'd used the wrong comment box way too late!)
No problem Deejay, and thanks.
Happy Weekend.
Russ:)
One of the big problems for rationalists is that the means and mode for immaterial things to act on material things (create images, thoughts, sounds) does not fit any post-Cartesian theory of causation that I am aware of. The mode of this action is essentially a mystery for believers who take the word of revelation. To overcome the immaterial/material barrier is precisely why the Father had to send the Word in the flesh to tell us such things. Aquinas follows Aristotle who believed that soul and body were inseparable, which makes the argument for bodily resurrection more plausible, as the soul in Heaven would not be "human" but something different, like the angels.
ReplyDeleteGreat presentation on the different terms for spirit and soul. I had heard the Greek differences but somehow that never sunk in!
Ciao
A very good point on rationalists, and I do hold to the idea that the spiritual God is the first cause, but God in Christ makes himself knowable to persons. I agree with you on rationalists, and although it is a very good term to use, and you use it correctly from what I have read, I usually compare philosophical reasoning to empirical or naturalistic thought, although rationalism would be under the umbrella of the philosophical. Some define rationalism as appealing to the rational for knowledge and truth which is what I have come across more, whereas you are also correctly using the term as deductive reasoning in contrast to empiricism. Thanks for mentioning the term, Mr. Ox.
ReplyDeleteAnd as well naturalists by definition are stuck with naturalistic explanations for everything.
From:
rationalism vs. empiricism
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
First published Thu 19 Aug, 2004
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
I agree that humanity in its fullness only takes place after death with the resurrection. With Luke 16: 19-31, although perhaps a parable, 2 Corinthians 12: 2-5 where Paul is open to the idea of existing in spirit, Philippians 1: 21-26, and the thief on the cross in Luke 23: 42-43, there is the strong Biblical possibility that that the spirit does consciously exist outside the body, probably within time in paradise/heaven. I reason that this a temporary place for believers that is not purgatory and is also not the culminated Kingdom of God/Heaven described in Revelation 21-22. If paradise in an actual place, I reason that time exists in order for finite human beings in spirit to process thoughts. I doubt that when Jesus told the thief he would be with Christ in paradise that day that he meant that it would merely seem like the resurrection would take place that day, but this is debatable theology.:) If Dr. Habermas' research is pointing toward legitimate Near Death Experiences, to me it adds evidence to the possibility that the human spirit after death in Christ is in a simulated earth like place called Paradise awaiting the resurrection.
Thanks, Mr Ox, and it is great to have complimentary comments from Roman Catholics. It is excellent to have complimentary comments from anyone.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteYour post helps me to better understand the difference between the soul and the spirit.
I've had a little tract for many years (20 years or so, I think), put out by Bethany Fellowship, entitled, "Soul and Spirit: How Do They Differ?" by Harold J. Brokke. I didn't want to re-type even large parts of it, so I searched and found it online (the wonders of the Internet!):
SOUL AND SPIRIT HOW DO THEY DIFFER?
I cannot see conclusive Biblical proof that the soul and spirit are two different distinct immaterial human parts.
ReplyDeleteIt could be that the soul/spirit are one in the same, but that the one aspect is the self-consciousness which both human beings and animals (to a much less degree) have, whereas human beings also have another aspect which is God-consciousness which would be spirituality.
It could very well be that at times the human spirit when discussed in more earthly terms is called the soul and that there are not two aspects or parts of the human spirit.
I lean toward the understanding of a human dichotomy as opposed to trichotomy.
Thanks very much, Jeff.
Here's some confusing thinking for you:
ReplyDeleteIf a person is without Christ, he/she is said to be spiritually dead. Yet, their soul is alive, because they are a human being alive on this Earth. Does this not demonstrate a difference between soul and spirit?
Logically, then, I would assume that those in Hell have souls that are alive, but they would be spiritually dead.
And yet, the Devil and his demons are fallen angels, and angels are said to be spirits. So, being lost cannot mean that you have no spirit, or that your spirit is dead---at least, not as far as angels are concerned. (Maybe a different rule applies with humans?)
God breathed into man, and he became a living soul---but when did man receive a spirit? Or, is 'spirit' in this case synonymous with 'soul,' in a certain sense?
I tend to think that man is comprised of body, mind and spirit (though some have said 'body, mind and soul'). In this case, I would probably equate 'mind' with 'soul.'
Your body can become weak, and can die and rot. Your spirit is apparently dead at birth, and can only be regenerated by the redeeming work of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit. And your mind (soul?) can become dysfunctional (via Alzheimer's disease, etc.), or clouded, or comatose (though arguably still active), or insane, or can hallucinate.
Jeff, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI reason spiritually dead does not mean a person does not have a live spirit. The spirit of the unregenerate person is not influenced by God in saving grace and faith and therefore is living in death in the sense of being apart from the author of life, God.
I dunno about spirit, but I'm pretty sure James Brown has soul...
ReplyDeleteChuck has led Bible studies at Mennonite and Presbyterian churches for over 20 years to come up with that nugget of truth.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Mr. Chuck Fan Chu
Empirical science has its place and can tell us how things work but not why, so it is limited and not the "be all end all" in thought and reason. Reason and rationale have been major factors in my belief of the human soul. Thank you for your insights and interesting article on the soul and spirit.
ReplyDelete-Heart & Soul-
Thanks, sir.
ReplyDeleteMy question is why cannot Firefox blog links that are past a certain length format properly as do the Internet Explorer links?
Someone comments that you are a killer for hire after looking at your photo, in my post this past Wed.:
ReplyDeleteKingpin the Assassain
My question is why cannot Firefox blog links that are past a certain length format properly as do the Internet Explorer links?
ReplyDeleteWhat about using Tiny URL? It's a workaround, at least.
I'm trying to do some research on truncated URLs, because I have experienced the same things sometimes. So far, I have not found anything concrete, that would be of real help, but I have found mentions of a "47-character chop off." I'm not sure whether they're talking about Firefox specifically, however.
ReplyDeleteHere's more info I found. I'm trying to gather as many clues as I can until I can hopefully find a solution. However, I'm not going to spend a long time on this.
ReplyDeleteThe truncated urls are 40 characters long, a.k.a. 47 characters from http://www to the end.
The User-agent begins with "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1" and does not contain search-related info (see original thread). For example:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)
Attempts to contact the visitor Hosts/IPs requesting the truncated urls are fruitless. (Efforts include a 302 redirect to a special, off-site page with contact info and an address .jpg; the graphic is retrieved, but the contact-me message unheeded.)
I know that probably doesn't help much at all, and maybe doesn't even make a whole lot of sense, but again, I'm just trying to gather clues at this point. I'm also seeing that the problem is apparently with bots, but that seems obvious, because its an automated process.
Here are some more clues:
ReplyDelete------------------------
One person writes:
"Back to truncated urls: most if not all of mine appear to originate from where Pfui mentioned at http://search.viewpoint.com
Let's do a little deductive reasoning on this problem:
1) The truncated urls are displayed on Viewpoints search page and not hyperlinked.
2) The full URL is actually hyperlinked correctly to the page title.
3) A browser clicking on the actual link on the page wouldn't get a 404 from a truncated URL.
4) A browser couldn't cut and paste the truncated URL and still have a referrer from that site.
My theorem based on pondering the possibilities of the facts above:
The truncated links that refer to Viewpoint must therefore be created by an automated crawler. This crawler detects what appears to be a link (truncated) on the page in the text and also crawls this link. The crawler also sends the referrer of where it came from, in this case Viewpoint, as some of them do that.
Since Viewpoint only appears to be a search, not a directory, then some search crawler is scraping the results from a list of keyword searches performed on Viewpoint which is probably why you only see a certain group of truncated page names. All I'm seeing is the same bunch of page names truncated over and over, which were most likely the result from the same specific keywords being searched on Viewpoint.
Other instances of this same problem MAY BE, but not limited to, other search scrapers accessing Viewpoint or crawling an already damaged list of results on another scrapers site.
That's my theory to date."
-----------------------
Someone else replied:
"I agree Viewpoint definitely looks like the most likely 'enabling engine' right now, if only because we can literally see truncated urls in its SERPs."
-----------------------
Another reply:
" There's an extension for firefox which turns raw urls on web pages into links if they aren't links already. That could explain how people could click on a truncated link.
However none of the truncated requests I've seen have had a referrer, and I'm sure that there were various different user agents and not just firefox."
-----------------------
Someone else:
"OK ... this is just a shot in the dark, but does anyone think this "might" be caused by people accessing the cached page on a search engine instead of the real page?
I mean Google supplies all sorts of search engines, so the addresses could easily be from any number of different sources."
-----------------------
And finally:
"Thus far, Viewpoint is the only Search Engine found to be clearly and consistently showing truncated urls in its SERPs. They show the correctly linked Title (in blue), and they also show an unlinked, truncated URL in green. Try it:
http://search.viewpoint.com/
Try a search for "blogspot.com" (because of the long urls). Pick any result and then click SEARCH THIS SITE to really see the truncated, "green urls."
3.) Two of my most often-truncated urls appear in Viewpoint's initial results, each correctly linked and incorrectly truncated:
RIGHT: Viewpoint SERPs Title (linked; blue)
www.example.com/dirname1/dirname2/filename.html
WRONG: Viewpoint SERPs URL (unlinked; green)
www.example.com/dirname1/dirname2/filena
The latter is 40 characters on the nose.
And then when I click "SEARCH THIS SITE," there are 11 pages of results, the longest "green urls" of which all truncate at 40. And there are a LOT of them because my site's name is 10 characters long."
Well, it looks like the problem with Viewpoint was solved, so that is apparently not what is causing the current issue of Firefox truncating URLs. Nevertheless, it may give a clue as to what is causing the issue:
ReplyDelete"Thank you so much for alerting Viewpoint to this issue.
We believe that we have identified a potential cause for the truncated requests that may be appearing in your error logs. We hope that this issue has now been resolved.
A visual search feature made available through some Viewpoint toolbars may have caused the reported anomalies. Following a recent redesign of Viewpoint Search, some of our toolbars began requesting truncated text URLs rather than complete site hyperlinks when generating visual site previews for web searches.
The problem was caused by an HTML coding error on Viewpoint's search results page. At no time were any searchers ever directed to broken links on any site. URLs are truncated during the SERP rendering process, which only impacts the text appearing below search results, not the actual hyperlinks.
Viewpoint does not operate any search spiders.
Annie alerted us to this issue last Friday. Her comprehensive summary of reported anomalies as well as the detailed contributions of everyone on this thread helped us to identify a possible cause of this issue and resolve this problem within a few days. The fix took affect this afternoon.
Again, we sincerely regret the confusion and headaches that this may have caused for some of you over the past few weeks. Additionally, we cannot overstate our gratitude to all of you for helping us to detect and resolve this problem.
Best regards,
Rick, Product Manager
Viewpoint Corp"
OK, reporting my last clue, and then I'll stop trying to turn this into a Tech Support Comment section.
ReplyDelete"Yup, that did stop some of it but probably won't stop all of it as I was getting similar page requests from a couple of obvious spiders, not toolbars.
You don't have to operate a spider to be the source of the problem as truncated results show on your search site. If scrapers are scraping your search results and incorrectly extract those truncated addresses shown in green, then we'll still see some of this."
Jeff, thanks for the information concerning the URLs. I answered the comment concerning thekinpin as hitman on your blog.
ReplyDeleteI am adopted and part Italian.
Russ:)
OK, so you have Mafia blood in you! That explains it!
ReplyDeleteHey....
ReplyDeleteRuss:)