Do you have soul? Do you have spirit?

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.

Everlasting vs. Eternal Reprised

Vernon, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/chuck-norris-on-
chuck-norris.html

This a reprise of an article I did in November 2006, but I am including an additional section and cartoon at the end. Mr. David Esler read and commented on the original article, but most of you have probably not dug through my archives to find it, and frankly, I do not blame you. I reason some of my earlier articles could interest new readers.

Interestingly in New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament.

Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one.

The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.

This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account.

Additional

Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).

If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.

My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot fully understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Mr. Jeff Jenkins of Thoughts and Theology sent me this menu. Please click on it to enlarge.

Friday night fun! Rush and Freewill

Rush: Freewill

Rush's song Freewill is noted for its sensational soloing in the middle of the track.

Chucky and I saw Rush for the seventh time on Thursday night. In my view for an electric band they are among the best artists ever. Within a secular band, a Christian should be able to listen to vocals/lyrics and filter out non-Christian or anti-Christian concepts if they are familiar enough with Christian philosophy and faith. Rush drummer Neil Peart is a sometimes noted critic of religion.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,800,Neil-Peart-cites-The-God-Delusion-in-new-albums-liner-notes,Rush

The liner notes to the forthcoming album "Snakes and Arrows" by the legendary rock band Rush mention The God Delusion. The author and lyricist Neil Peart writes the following:

I was also thinking, like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, about how children are usually imprinted with a particular faith, along with their other early blessings and scars. People who actively choose their faith are vanishingly few; most simply receive it, with their mother's milk, language, and customs. Thinking also of people being shaped by early abuse of one kind or another, I felt a connection with friends who had adopted rescue dogs as puppies, and given them unlimited love, care, and security. If those puppies had been 'damaged' by their earlier treatment--made nervous, timid, or worse--they would always remain that way, no matter how smooth the rest of their life might be. It seemed the same for children.

Some of us are educated in our religious philosophy and faith, and do not simply follow the worldview of our parents. I reason that many non-religious adults grew up in non-religious homes. Children can also grow up conditioned with atheistic or agnostic views. The bottom line for whether a worldview is true or false is evidence. Sadly many persons in relative intellectual blindness do simply follow the worldview, religious or not, of their parents. If the evidence for the worldview of parents is good then it would not be blind for children to hold the same worldview. Evidence for Christianity includes historical revealed documentation. This documentation is a key to reasonable Christian philosophy.

My views on free will have been discussed on this blog, but here are two major positions I have dealt with in my MPhil and PhD theses. I hold to compatibilism, also know as soft determinism which is in line with Reform theology.

Compatibilism:

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). God would be the primary cause within Christian theism of a Reformed tradition.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, John Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and he writes that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Incompatibilism:

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52).

John Sanders writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions, but it is thought that a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation. Sanders (1998: 221).

Hugh McCann (2001) explains there can be no independent determining conditions of human deeds, and human actions are committed voluntarily. McCann (2001: 115).

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

MCCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18, Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

The Son of Man

Chateau De Menthon, Annecy, France (photo from trekearth.com)

Son of Man

Luke 9:22 is a New Testament example where Jesus uses this phrase of himself. Here he describes his coming death and resurrection.

Strong describes the term for son, υἱὸς which is used widely in an immediate context and also in the remote or figurative context of kinship, child, foal, son. Strong (1986: 99). The word man, aνθρώποs, is defined as man-faced, human being, certain, man. Strong (1986: 12). Each usage of a Greek word needs to be understood individually in context, of course. The exact term aνθρώποu, is used in Luke 9:22. The Greek New Testament (1993: 237). The term is used in the genitive as the Son of Man. Anthropos is the anglicized version of the word defined by Strong and relates to the English word anthropology.

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’. Christ has dignity and will be enthroned. Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and preexistent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

Please leave comments. I do not expect them to be overly intellectual and I appreciate feedback and the continual knowledge that people are reading the articles. My philosophy is that comments build blog interest and so I appreciate comments on the articles, images/cartoons, and even interesting Biblical, theological, and philosophical rants that are not necessarily related to articles. But, I do not appreciate weirdness from persons that want to dump their bizarre views on this site and then take off. This is kind of like my former German Shepherd Husky that would escape from the backyard, leave a parcel on a neighbour's front yard and then split.

Thanks.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.







http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-25-grossing-
films-worldwide-theatre.html