Is taken as meaning the spiritual dead, ie the non-believers.
Richard
That reminds me of a man in our church went on a certain medication that had a known side effect to induce a compulsion to gambling! Being a man of faith he was not at the casino, but collected a stash of stuffed animals from those coin operated claw arcade games. LOL soo funny!
This looked particularly fitting, a passage I normally donât quote:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedienceâ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christâby grace you have been savedâ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
1 Like
The Christian faith is that God will resurrect souls and we will be new, similar to Christ as He appeared to His disciples after the resurrection. This means that God has, subject to His will, everything that constitutes each and every person - and all infirmities, medical problems, etc., will be healed, all attributes that conform to God contained in the resurrected soul, and all sins cleaned. The additional aspect is judgement by Christ - Patristic writings show that many souls will undergo repentance and their sins and destructive attributes will be purged through self-growth towards God.
I can envisage a new world of many, many activities as all endeavor to grow in joy as children of the Father and citizens of the Kingdom.
If QM truly says there are truly uncaused causes I would adopt one of the following:
- Quantum mechanics is a great model but ultimately wrong (itâs an approximation of reality)
- Quantum mechanics is a great model but incomplete.
- We donât fully understand quantum mechanics/a different interpretation of QM is in order (e.g. BroglieâBohm theory)
- The causes are simply undetectable to us at this time.
- We are taking mathematical models/tools too literally.
I am not convinced QM necessarily says this though. But effects without causes is something too disconnected from reality for me to buy on the basis of a mathematical model that probably has a bunch of book-keeping terms in it. Not to mention it defends on a specific interpretation of QM. Science rests on assumptions: uniformitarianism and causal relation being the two primary ones. If science starts sawing off the branch it is sitting on something is wrong.
David Albert wrote: â[V]acuum states â no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systemsâare particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff âŚthe fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppingsâif you look at them arightâamount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
Willian Lane Craig has said: â There are at least ten different physical interpretations of the equations of quantum mechanics, and theyâre all empirically equivalent, theyâre mathematically consistent, and no one knows which, if any of them, is the correct physical interpretation. Iâm inclined to agree with philosophers of science who think of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation [which includes uncaused events] as really just quite unintelligible, and Iâm therefore more inclined to some sort of deterministic theory of quantum mechanics⌠It remains a matter of deep debate as to how to understand it.â
The ordered nature of subatomic physics leads me to think that if we are seeing uncaused causes then there is simply some underlying physics we donât understand.
If I find a gallon of milk in my fridge I assume someone put it there. I donât see how really really really âsmallâ things can be expected to behave different. Nor do I think I should ultimately take the interpretation of science seriously on this front if it claims otherwise.
Vinnie
It does not. I said no such thing.
Quantum mechanics and physics in general is not about the whole of reality but only about measurements.
Incomplete what? It is certainly not incomplete in the sense that there are hidden variables and equations determining the outcome. That has been ruled out.
Yes a stubborn physical determinist refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary will throw out all of physics and its findings just to uphold his philosophical prejudice.
Yes that is certainly a possibility. Quantum physics only rules out determinism within the accepted premises of the scientific worldview (i.e. physical determinism). Thus the metaphysical naturalist accepting the findings of science would most reasonably simply accept that some things are not fully determined by preceding conditions. Those believing reality is more than what science describes could believe in causes from outside the scientific worldview. I however embrace all the possibilities as the most likely, that there are causes outside the scientific worldview, that there are examples of causality which is not time-ordered, and that some things are uncaused. I see no reason to cling to any kind of determinism or exclusively time-ordered causality.
Not sure what you mean, but I certainly think mathematics is just one way of looking at reality and should not be equated with reality itself.
1 Like
The spark of life has flummoxed scientists since the age of time. The Soul is the theistic answer but there is no consention about the mechanics of it. For God to be creating each one would be a full-time job in itself.
Clearly the egg and sperm constitute a continuance of life and a fusion and alteration of genetic material but there is not enough Genetic variance to justify individuality on the scale of Humanity. The Nature v Nurture debate is ongoing. The modern obsession with gender change of sexuality highlights the notion that some things are in-built but not necessarily inherent, but they also deny a Godly influence because Christianity still will not accept transgender or homosexuality as any sort of norm. (There is scriptural backing against it, of course). Paulâs outcry against what he wants and what he does implies an internal struggle of at a spiritual level.
If you are going to dismiss the soul, perhaps you can provide a viable alternative?
Richard
I am not sure I understand this. Are you suggesting the soul is a âcomponentâ that needs to be created? I equate âsoulâ with personhood, or what it is to be human.
Perhaps you can elaborate.
1 Like
I am not proposing anything, butâŚ
We talk about God having individual plans for us⌠and/or knowing us. David, in the Psalms, claims that before he was born God knew him. Does this mean that God created each individual? How âhands onâ do we think God is? Where does the soul/individuality come from?
I am looking for what people believe rather than an answer par se. I am not sure that an answer is available.
Individuality is as much a part of free will as choice. If we are programmed then there is no free will. I am vehemently against any notion of predestination. Rather, I believe that God just knows without having to influence. We have to be masters of our own destiny within the boundaries of the vagrances of the world around us.
Richard
I draw a distinction between the phrase âI knowâ (human knowledge) and âGod knowsâ. I think this is obvious, but a lot can be discussed.
Since Christ was the Saviour before the beginning of time, we may have a difficult time arguing against a form of predestination - however, I do not believe that human freedom, choice, individuality is in any way compromised.
The answer is yes and no. God has created all and sustains all - this is Christianity 101. So yes, God created each and every one of us. Does this mean we are machines programed by a superbeing for his amusement - no, of course not. We must be masters of ourselves, and this however, is where we fail in that we are predisposed to sin. So God knows this and freely offers His Grace through His Son, to forgive us and OFFERS a way to become His children. I suppose this may be an answer to your comment regarding our destiny - although our limitations and the vagrancies of the world complicate matters.
Then why did Jesus tell people "not to sin again? If it is unavoidable?
Richard
Is He supposed to encourage us not to try?
The only place I am aware that there is anything close to that is John 8:11. The context is pretty specific and implying the particular sin under discussion. The NIV has it as âGo now and leave your life of sin.â It is not saying that it is possible to henceforth to live a sinless life. Do you have another instance where Jesus said anything even approaching that?
1 Like
Jesus distinguishes between the sinner and the righteous, implying (more than once) that the righteous exist. He came to save the sinner. Only the sick need healing. And so on.
His criticism of the Pharisees was not that they themselves sinned but that they lauded it over the rest of the people and made their lives impossible.
Paul seems to think that being sinless is impossible, but that is not what I see in the teaching of Jesus Himself.
I refute the reformation view of sin and especially the Calvanistic view of absolute depravity.
There is such a person as an innocent, and there are saints. Neither would be possible if sin were endemic or unavoidable. The point is that it is not our place to judge, or define otherâs sin. Neither is it our place to set the burden of sin on humanity as a whole.
Richard
So you consider yourself sinless?
I have never said so, nor claim it.
John Wesley believed that perfection was possible. So is winning the lottery or being hit by a meteor. I wonder the chances of both happening to the same person? There is a difference between theory and practice. The world throws enough curved balls to test even the purest saint, and I am nowhere near them. All I claim is that sin is a choice not a disease or an inevitability. I can make bum choices with the rest of them
Richard
By we, I mean human beings in general. We should endeavor to avoid sinning, as we are admonished to repent and turn to Christ. I think that after repentance, the Holy Spirit is there to help us avoid sin and to live according to Godâs will - so there are saints and innocents (btw repentance is a free choice by any and all individuals, and Godâs grace is predestinated).
To be predisposed to sin does not mean we must sin, or that sin is unavoidable.
(edit) from Thessalonians 5 (what Paul taught) Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.
I agree that sin is not something we âmustâ do, and that we can grow towards making less sin in our life - I guess the process is called âtheosisâ in the eastern tradition and a comparable process is called âsanctificationâ in the western tradition. The growth process happens in cooperation with the Holy Spirit but includes our own decision. Free will is included in that sense. The theological starting point that is needed from the beginning is âbeing in Christâ that includes a deep identification of being one with Christ, as well in death as in resurrection. Our salvation is âin Christâ.
What does this reveal about the soul-brain question?
I am not sure whether it reveals anything.
As far as I have understood, the Hebrew interpretation was stressing that a human is a whole entity. Splitting humans to separate parts came mainly from the direction of Greek philosophy, especially the idea of a good and eternal soul living in a bad material body.
If we interpret that humans are a whole entity, anything that seriously damages or modifies the brains affects the whole human, including those aspects of human that are called our âsoulâ.
Although we are a whole entity, something stays after the body dies. Traditionally that has been called âsoulâ. Some think it could be more like an image of us in the mind of God, something that is used when God creates a resurrection body. Whatever it is, damaged or modified brains affect our whole life now but not the life after resurrection, when we have a different kind of body.
There is so much speculation here, it boils down to individual understanding and belief. According to Bible Gateway Soul occurs 95 times in the Bible, usually in tandem with the heart. It would appear to be thought of as the essence of thought as opposed to emotion.
Richard
1 Like
Except that the word âsoulâ isnât anywhere in the Bible because it wasnât written in a language that had such a word.
What it has is a word that usually means something quite different: life, person, mind, himself.