Comments on: Could a Non-Physical Being Possibly Affect the Physical World?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:31:00 +0000

Brian,
Merry Christmas! It's been a fun conversation!
Justin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:23:00 +0000

Justin, I guess everyone else will just have to miss out. It appears we are coming to an end of our discussion. Here are some closing thoughts:
With my understanding of “soul”, I don't think questions like “where” and “how” come into the picture. If the soul is an immaterial substance, then those are appropriate. But if soul is spiritual, then that becomes moot.
Just to emphasize again, by rejecting the immateriality of the soul, I don't mean to embrace a material view. I embrace breaking free from from material/immaterial dualism that doesn't make sense in light of scientific and psychological discoveries.
For further reading, check out Shults' Reforming the Doctrine of God. It has helped me immensely. I'm sure we'll bump into each other again when someone puts up another article that peaks our interest.
Peace

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:50:00 +0000

Brian,
I agree that we both have to answer the same questions regarding our views of the soul, as you discussed in your last post with the questions: “Where” does the soul reside? “how” does it interact with my material body? Is my body any part of “who” I really am? “What” truly constitutes a soul?
I tend to think that the “where” is less of a problem if the soul is immaterial rather than material, as an immaterial thing doesn't literally take up space. The “who” seems a little less troubling if my essence is an immaterial soul, as one doesn't run into the problem of our material beings changing so drastically (cells dying, mutating, etc.), as an immaterial soul would not undergo the effects of aging, etc. The “what” an “how” questions are very intriguing with a body/soul duality, as it must be that the soul interacts with the physical body in ways that can be hindered by disability – as you talked about early in the discussion.
While scripture doesn't address the problem directly, I think it implies things about the nature (immaterial, in my view) of our soul and God (also immaterial, in my view).
I hope I didn't misrepresent your view of the trinity in my earlier post- I also agree that the nature of God is trinitarian.
This discussion has been fun. Not a whole lot of people are interested in hashing this stuff out, or even thinking about it, for that matter!
-Justin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:26:00 +0000

Justin,
You pose good questions. They are questions I'm still looking to find direction for so I don't have “answers” for you. But let me comment on a couple of your statements.
By labeling God a “being”, you are beginning to define him, to set limits on him. “He's a being of a certain sort”. But as soon as you tag that label on God, you boundary-setting process has begun on God, who again, is infinite and can't be “defined”. I can't even say “God is love” (which scripture does), without qualifying what I mean because language itself is a culturally constructed set of symbols used to differentiate finite objects from other finite objects. That's why we have to be careful when we use words that aren't found in scripture.
Now, I'm not suggesting we can't use words that aren't found in scripture. We can and must. All of our creeds do just that, and they are important. My point is we have to be very careful in the words we use so that we don't lead ourselves and others away from what is truly real… who God truly is.
I believe scripture reveals that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit relationship is constitutive to the essence of God. To truly understand God as God, you must understand God as the relationships of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Everything is derived from Trinity. God is not a God of love without Trinity. God is not sovereign without Trinity? Salvation isn't even possible without Trinity? You can't get more basic in God than Trinity.
My aim concerning the material/immaterial debate isn't an attempt to suggest God is a “material being” as apposed to immaterial. My point is: scripture seems totally uninterested in this question (for it doesn't address it in the least), so is it possible (which would be my contention) that our attempts to talk about God as material or immaterial come from other forces (modern views of reality).
Your view of the soul is that it's some sort of substance that “resides” in humans. So the question becomes, “where” does the soul reside? “how” does it interact with my material body? Is my body any part of “who” I really am? “What” truly constitutes a soul? But there are a host of problems with viewing the soul as a “substance” in this way and also, there may be other ways to view “soul” that is truer to the Biblical text and not so problematic (especially with science).
Thanks for the good discussion. This helps my own processing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:25:00 +0000

Brain,
Thanks for the well-wishes. I'm feeling much better now.
You said: “Isn't it interesting to note that the Bible never refers to God as a 'being'. We've labeled God a 'being', but the scriptures describe God as an dynamic relationship of persons. So I don't like to refer to God as a 'being'.”
I'm not sure I agree with this. I mean, the Bible rarely (if at all)explicitly states that anyone is a “being,” if you mean that it doesn't use the word “being” to describe God. I think the use of the personal pronoun He throughout the scriptures when referring to God implies that He is a being. I also don't think that God is the “relationship” between three persons. God is one essence in trinitarian form, and there is a relationship between the three persons of the trinity, but I don't think it is correct to label God as simply the “relationship” between the three persons of the trinity.
As far as the question of material and immaterial being important, I thiink that it affects the nature of God if he is a material being. Material things change. As far as I know, all material things are contingent, which means that they can't exist of their own power; they have to have a cause. If God is contingent, we have problems.
Further, if I am just a material being with no soul, where does my “spiritual center” reside? What makes me, me? Our physical bodies are constantly renewing themselves, sloughing off old cells and making new ones, yet I feel that I am the same person I was when I was born. . (Though I'm not, physically speaking.)
If I may repeat my earlier questions, If not immaterial, something is material, right? Matter takes up space. Where is or what is this “spiritual center”? Does it reside within our cells or body chemistry? The brain? If it is material, and it is within us, it has to reside somewhere, right?
You also asked:” To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you? Being that the scriptures never refer to this issue (material/immaterial), I tend to think “why is this important?”
By my earlier post, I was just saying that this question cuts both ways. If what you say is true, it shouldn't matter to you either, but it obviously does.
I will end by posing the same question to you that you asked me: Which of your theological convictions seem most in jeopardy if the soul is an immaterial substance?
-Justin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:04:00 +0000

Get better. Take some Vitamin C. Or as my coach would always say, “Rub some dirt on it.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:34:00 +0000

Brian,
Still following, but I've been sick the last few days..
-Justin.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:26:00 +0000

But its only important to me because I think its false. I wouldn't enter into conversations about the whether the soul is immaterial if others didn't presume it. I wouldn't be persistently telling my son Santa isn't real if he wouldn't bring it up. If Amy didn't presume the immateriality of the soul, I never would have enter into the dialogue.
But it seems important to you because some of your theological beliefs are tied to the soul being an “immaterial substance.” That seems different.
Which of your theological convictions seem most in jeopardy if the soul isn't an immaterial substance?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:03:00 +0000

Brian,
You ask: “To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you?”
I guess it's important to me for the same reasons that the material nature of man and the absence of the immaterial soul is important to you.
-Justin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:48:00 +0000

Isn't it interesting to note that the Bible never refers to God as a “being”. We've labeled God a “being”, but the scriptures describe God as an dynamic relationship of persons. So I don't like to refer to God as a “being”.
Also, when God is a “being”, we run into huge problems when we think of him not changing. While the Bible clearly says that God doesn't change, there are also references where it clearly says God does change. So, the evangelical conservatives and liberals beginning arguing what passages should be understood metaphorically/anthropomorphically while the entire effort is conditioned on understanding God in finite terms and as a single subject. If we retrieve true infinity and view God as the scriptures suggest (the relationship of 3 persons), I think we could make a lot more sense out of all these scripture passages.
To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you? Being that the scriptures never refer to this issue (material/immaterial), I tend to think “why is this important?”