|
|
Post by turoldus on Sept 21, 2015 8:24:55 GMT
According to the Atlantic this raises some difficult questions for Christians. Well, I'm one and I don't find those questions difficult - but then I'm not the kind of fundamentalist, evolution-denying that the liberal media thinks to be the norm. theatln.tc/1JiIMkk |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 21, 2015 21:37:39 GMT
According to the Atlantic this raises some difficult questions for Christians. Well, I'm one and I don't find those questions difficult - but then I'm not the kind of fundamentalist, evolution-denying that the liberal media thinks to be the norm. theatln.tc/1JiIMkkI don't believe we have a soul as some separate entity, but it is still an interesting question what makes a human being. Physically, we can see that one species gradually evolves into another, and be quite comfortable that there is no clear boundary, but if animals cannot respond to God but people can, then a gradual evolution makes this difficult or impossible to define - for us at least. I think there are many things we may not ever know, but living with ambiguity isn't always easy. |
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Sept 22, 2015 9:53:06 GMT
I don't believe we have a soul as some separate entity [/quote] What is the "soul" to you? Are you a physicalist? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 22, 2015 22:33:18 GMT
What is the "soul" to you? Are you a physicalist? Just curious. My understanding, admittedly very weak, is that the Greek word psyche often translated "soul" literally means "breath", and is the equivalent of the Hebrew "nephesh" which means "breath". In context, it is generally better translated as "life" or "a living being". Thus Bakers Evangelical Dictionary says: "in the Old Testament a mortal is a living soul rather than having a soul". The Holman Bible Dictionary says: "In the Bible, a person is a unity. Body and soul or spirit are not opposite terms, but rather terms which supplement one another to describe aspects of the inseparable whole person. .... over against the Greek culture which, since Plato, sharply separated body and soul with an analytic exactness and which saw the soul as the valuable, immortal, undying part of human beings."So an "immortal soul" is a Greek idea, not a Jewish or Christian one, even though some branches of christianity have taken it up. We don't have a soul, and we are not immortal - life in the age to come depends on the grace of resurrection, not immortality. But I am not a physicalist, I guess I am a dualist. I think we are more than physical - the mental, emotional, spiritual aspects of humanity cannot (I believe) be adequately explained by physicalism. But how this works isn't clear to me. I have recently been reading and thinking about when in evolution hominids became human, when were they capable of relating to God, and held responsible by God for their actions? And when in the process of pregnancy does the fetus become human? These are obviously difficult and important questions, especially the latter, but I don't think they can be resolved by saying at some specific point God inserts a soul into the physical body, and then it becomes human. I wish it was that easy, but I don't think it is. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Sept 23, 2015 6:05:34 GMT
According to the Atlantic this raises some difficult questions for Christians. Well, I'm one and I don't find those questions difficult - but then I'm not the kind of fundamentalist, evolution-denying that the liberal media thinks to be the norm. theatln.tc/1JiIMkkI don't believe in souls (I'm a materialist) so this doesn't concern me at all. |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Sept 23, 2015 7:15:33 GMT
I am trying to learn blues guitar.
I am convinced that I do not have soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 23, 2015 19:05:44 GMT
According to the Atlantic this raises some difficult questions for Christians. Well, I'm one and I don't find those questions difficult - but then I'm not the kind of fundamentalist, evolution-denying that the liberal media thinks to be the norm. theatln.tc/1JiIMkkIn fairness to The Atlantic, they don't have to agree with every author, and the author seems evangelical herself, to be fair to her. I am trying to learn blues guitar. I am convinced that I do not have soul. Only one option left, mate: downtune that guitar and riff some Sabbath.  |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 24, 2015 12:51:18 GMT
I am trying to learn blues guitar. I am convinced that I do not have soul. Only one option left, mate: downtune that guitar and riff some Sabbath. Dutch metalheads are a rare breed! |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Sept 25, 2015 5:55:58 GMT
According to the Atlantic this raises some difficult questions for Christians. Well, I'm one and I don't find those questions difficult - but then I'm not the kind of fundamentalist, evolution-denying that the liberal media thinks to be the norm. theatln.tc/1JiIMkkIn fairness to The Atlantic, they don't have to agree with every author, and the author seems evangelical herself, to be fair to her. I am trying to learn blues guitar. I am convinced that I do not have soul. Only one option left, mate: downtune that guitar and riff some Sabbath. I grew up with Black Sabbath as a kid and always loved the Paranoid album. I still give it a whirl in the car on the way home from work. And I do play around with Iron Man on the guitar. |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Sept 29, 2015 1:24:05 GMT
1. The word translated as "soul" from Latin is anima, which means "alive." Cf. "animate" vs. "inanimate." It was not until Descartes tinkered with philosophy (and broke it) that people began thinking it was some sort of substance (ousia) in itself. People who don't believe they have souls dpn't believe they are alive.
2. If a Neanderthal was alive, s/he had soul.
3. The real question is whether their souls possessed rational powers. That is, could they abstract universal concepts from concrete particulars, or were they limited to imagination and memory?
4. The main evidence against in favor are some disputed items that may be artifacts or intrusions from Cro Magnon and the presence of pollen in some burial sites indicating that they may have been buried with flowers; the main evidence against is that during the entire span of the species existence its toolkit never changed.
|
|
