Whether or not Lewis said it, it is nonetheless true -- no one *has* a soul, we *are* souls' no one *has* a mind, we *are* minds.
"Given the central themes of Lewis’ fiction and non-fiction, we can safely say that he would never intend to convey the belief that our bodies are simply temporary shells. Readers and fans know that the worlds he created are deeply physical. The trees are alive; the animals speak; a roaring lion appears most clearly to a small child. And the gods will not meet us until we have faces."
Reason-and-experience tells us that our bodies "are [] temporary shells" ... this also happens to be what the Bible explicitly teaches.
Not quite, Ilion. The Bible (and the Church) teach the Resurrection of the Body - explicitly. So ultimately our bodies are eternal - just like our souls.
"Not quite, Ilion. The Bible (and [The One True Bureaucracy]) teach the Resurrection of the Body - explicitly. So ultimately our bodies are eternal - just like our souls."
Did I say *anything* that questions, much less denies, the physicality of the Resurrection? Of course not.
What I said is that "you are not your body" and "your body is not you" -- reason-and-experience, without any reference to the Bible, informs us of this.
Moreover, the Bible uses the imagery of likening our bodies to worn clothing we will discard for new-and-glorious raiment; the Bible uses the imagery of likening our bodies to a tent or tabernacle, a temporary residence, we shall leave behind when he move into the palace prepared for us.
In the World to Come, as in this world, "you are not your body" and "your body is not you".
There are plenty of evidence showing that there is no sould existing independently of the body. Juts consider the drastic changes of personality brain damages cause, or the effect Alzheimer's disease has on an individual.
If the Bible teaches we have a platonic soul, the the Bible is dead wrong. But as many have pointed out, the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over.
l.l. "There are plenty of evidence showing that there is no sould existing independently of the body."
Actually, its the other way around.
l.l. "Juts consider the drastic changes of personality brain damages cause, or the effect Alzheimer's disease has on an individual."
Just consider that you are the same human person, instant-by-instant, *despite* the constant material changes to your body and your brain.
l.l. "But as many have pointed out, the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over."
"Many others" are: 1) ignorant; 2) liars; 2a) intellectually dishonest fools; take your pick.
What do you think "the old Hebrews" were thinking when they told-and-recorded the story of Saul's dealings with the witch of Endor? Why do you think God commanded (and they remembered the command) to have no necromancers amongst themselves if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"? Why would Saul even consult with a necromancer if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"? Why would the author(s) write that the spirit who "came up" and delivered God's judgment on Saul was Samuel if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"?
If you think impairment of brain functions is evidence against there being souls, then you simply have not been paying attention. I honestly don't know where to start with such a comment as yours, since it displays such a colossal degree of ignorance about the subject. (And that last sentence is not an insult. I have a colossal degree of ignorance about, for instance, the History of Mexico, and wouldn't dream of commenting on it. At least, not until I actually learned something about it.)
You really need to step back, take a deep breath, and learn something about what philosophers and theologians have to say about the soul before you say anything further. Might I suggest you start HERE.
Good points all, but the best answer to such nonsense is that of Jesus Himself:
"Have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)
Yes, I had considered mentioning that ... but the culture-and-beliefs of 1st century Judea isn't generally what people have in mind when they say that "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion [of a 'soul' or 'spirit' existing independently of the body] and most of them thought that with death everything was over".
When Christ said, "Have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living", he was arguing with -- and refuting, on their own terms -- the Sadducees, who, in opposition to the Pharisees, denied the survival of the human person after death and (thus, necessarily) denied the Resurrection of the dead and the World to Come.
The Sadducees accepted as Holy Scripture *only* the five Books of Moses, so Christ argued against them on the basis of *only* the five Books of Moses. – It’s like trying to show a ‘Science!’ fetishist that his metaphysics is erroneous: it is pointless to point to Scripture … or most philosophers … for he rejects Scripture and *any* philosopher who concludes that naturalism is a false metaphysic, no matter how valid and sound his logic; rather, one must argue on the basis of the means-to-knowledge that he *claims* to accept: observation and (simple) logic.
Ecclesiastes is apt to be quoted for the support of the idea that Hebrews were not interested in the afterlife. But I think this book can be read as an sustained argument for the resurrection in flesh that was not made explicit in the Mosaic revelation' The Hebrews were promised eternal blessings but the point of Ecclesiastes is that there can be no such blessings on this earth. Thus, to fulfill the promises, a resurrection is necessary.
Keep a good attitude and do the right thing even when it's hard. When you do that you are passing the test. And God promises you your marked moments are on their way. See the link below for more info.
13 comments:
Whether or not Lewis said it, it is nonetheless true -- no one *has* a soul, we *are* souls' no one *has* a mind, we *are* minds.
"Given the central themes of Lewis’ fiction and non-fiction, we can safely say that he would never intend to convey the belief that our bodies are simply temporary shells. Readers and fans know that the worlds he created are deeply physical. The trees are alive; the animals speak; a roaring lion appears most clearly to a small child. And the gods will not meet us until we have faces."
Reason-and-experience tells us that our bodies "are [] temporary shells" ... this also happens to be what the Bible explicitly teaches.
Not quite, Ilion. The Bible (and the Church) teach the Resurrection of the Body - explicitly. So ultimately our bodies are eternal - just like our souls.
"Not quite, Ilion. The Bible (and [The One True Bureaucracy]) teach the Resurrection of the Body - explicitly. So ultimately our bodies are eternal - just like our souls."
Did I say *anything* that questions, much less denies, the physicality of the Resurrection? Of course not.
What I said is that "you are not your body" and "your body is not you" -- reason-and-experience, without any reference to the Bible, informs us of this.
Moreover, the Bible uses the imagery of likening our bodies to worn clothing we will discard for new-and-glorious raiment; the Bible uses the imagery of likening our bodies to a tent or tabernacle, a temporary residence, we shall leave behind when he move into the palace prepared for us.
In the World to Come, as in this world, "you are not your body" and "your body is not you".
Fair enough. I misinterpreted your posting. I repent in dust and ashes.
There are plenty of evidence showing that there is no sould existing independently of the body.
Juts consider the drastic changes of personality brain damages cause, or the effect Alzheimer's disease has on an individual.
If the Bible teaches we have a platonic soul, the the Bible is dead wrong.
But as many have pointed out, the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over.
l.l. "There are plenty of evidence showing that there is no sould existing independently of the body."
Actually, its the other way around.
l.l. "Juts consider the drastic changes of personality brain damages cause, or the effect Alzheimer's disease has on an individual."
Just consider that you are the same human person, instant-by-instant, *despite* the constant material changes to your body and your brain.
l.l. "But as many have pointed out, the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over."
"Many others" are:
1) ignorant;
2) liars;
2a) intellectually dishonest fools;
take your pick.
What do you think "the old Hebrews" were thinking when they told-and-recorded the story of Saul's dealings with the witch of Endor? Why do you think God commanded (and they remembered the command) to have no necromancers amongst themselves if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"? Why would Saul even consult with a necromancer if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"? Why would the author(s) write that the spirit who "came up" and delivered God's judgment on Saul was Samuel if "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion and most of them thought that with death everything was over"?
lotharlorraine,
If you think impairment of brain functions is evidence against there being souls, then you simply have not been paying attention. I honestly don't know where to start with such a comment as yours, since it displays such a colossal degree of ignorance about the subject. (And that last sentence is not an insult. I have a colossal degree of ignorance about, for instance, the History of Mexico, and wouldn't dream of commenting on it. At least, not until I actually learned something about it.)
You really need to step back, take a deep breath, and learn something about what philosophers and theologians have to say about the soul before you say anything further. Might I suggest you start HERE.
Ilion,
Good points all, but the best answer to such nonsense is that of Jesus Himself:
"Have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."
(Matthew 22:31-32)
Yes, I had considered mentioning that ... but the culture-and-beliefs of 1st century Judea isn't generally what people have in mind when they say that "the old Hebrews had absolutely no such notion [of a 'soul' or 'spirit' existing independently of the body] and most of them thought that with death everything was over".
When Christ said, "Have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living", he was arguing with -- and refuting, on their own terms -- the Sadducees, who, in opposition to the Pharisees, denied the survival of the human person after death and (thus, necessarily) denied the Resurrection of the dead and the World to Come.
The Sadducees accepted as Holy Scripture *only* the five Books of Moses, so Christ argued against them on the basis of *only* the five Books of Moses. – It’s like trying to show a ‘Science!’ fetishist that his metaphysics is erroneous: it is pointless to point to Scripture … or most philosophers … for he rejects Scripture and *any* philosopher who concludes that naturalism is a false metaphysic, no matter how valid and sound his logic; rather, one must argue on the basis of the means-to-knowledge that he *claims* to accept: observation and (simple) logic.
Ecclesiastes is apt to be quoted for the support of the idea that Hebrews were not interested in the afterlife.
But I think this book can be read as an sustained argument for the resurrection in flesh that was not made explicit in the Mosaic revelation'
The Hebrews were promised eternal blessings but the point of Ecclesiastes is that there can be no such blessings on this earth. Thus, to fulfill the promises, a resurrection is necessary.
Keep a good attitude and do the right thing even when it's hard. When you do that you are passing the test. And God promises you your marked moments are on their way. See the link below for more info.
#promises
www.inspgift.com
Good day! I love your article so much. The picture was absolutely amazing. Please visit my site.
n8fan.net
www.n8fan.net
Post a Comment