Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

Phil said: So how do we understand God's personhood without something like
the changes of time that are necessary to our own personhood? IMO that's a
poser, since like you I think God is timeless.

I respond: isn't this just one of those places where we have to remember
that terms like "personhood" in respect of God are merely analogical?
"Personhood" is just a human way of speaking of some aspects of a God who is
ultimate ineffable.

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:37 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

>
> In Phil's case, it means also that he has constructed a God in his own
> image. As I imagine his temporal deity, he had to engage in plain and fancy
> finger-twiddling for an eternity before he though to create a universe.
>
> Dave, I've just spent the past week arguing that I don't think God (or any
> spirit) is extended in time, so how do you accuse me of having a "temporal
> deity"? Come on, buddy! This isn't what I said or believe.
>
> I don't think God is extended in time, but I also don't like the idea that
> God is timeless, either. Read "merely" timeless (since I already
> established I don't believe He is extended in time -- except in the person
> of Christ incarnate in a body in spacetime). Also, when I said I don't like
> the idea, you can read it more charitably as "don't intellectually like" or
> "don't think the idea is the best." I second George's request to please
> avoid ridicule on this list.
>
> It is hard to understand what personhood can mean without there being
> time, right? Does a frozen sculpture have real personality? Can it do
> anything? So how do we understand God's personhood without something like
> the changes of time that are necessary to our own personhood? IMO that's a
> poser, since like you I think God is timeless. That is why I wonder if
> perhaps there are more ways that Personality can be real and meaningful
> other than through mere space and time dimensions, but that we can't
> comprehend them because of our limitations. So again, that leads me to
> think that spirit is not extended in spacetime but has other depths we can't
> comprehend .
>
> Phil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: bernie.dehler@intel.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 2:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
> Phil's statement reminds me of what I got from one of my professors many
> years ago. I had commented that the Bible noted that Jesus drank /oinos/
> (wine). The Greek word had earlier been, like the Latin, pronounced roughly
> WEE nose, for the terms are cognate. His response was, "I cannot imagine my
> Lord drinking wine." WCTU controlled imagination trumped lexicons, history,
> and anything else. In Phil's case, it means also that he has constructed a
> God in his own image. As I imagine his temporal deity, he had to engage in
> plain and fancy finger-twiddling for an eternity before he though to create
> a universe. Of course, Phil may prefer to imagine him as thinking so slowly
> that it took him eternity past to figure out that he wanted to create a
> world.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:38:26 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
>
> Phil: "I don't like the idea that God's eternity is timeless because I
> can't imagine God being frozen like a statue. I can't imagine a personality
> existing without time. "
>
> I heard a philosophy professor say that time may not be an attribute. We
> all have x, y, z, but not time, as an attribute. Nothing has time as an
> attribute. Time may be a delta, such as the difference between the height
> of George and Rick being 3 inches. Neither has the attribute of 3 inches-
> it is a delta. Same with time; there is past, present, future, and it can
> be measured in differences between each other.
>
> Thinking that way, time is relevant in this universe, but not needed
> outside the universe- before creation… maybe.
>
> …Bernie
> "It's turtles all the way down."
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu?>]
> *On Behalf Of *philtill@aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:00 PM
> *To:* bsollereder@gmail.com
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
> Hi Bethany,
>
> Thanks for the interesting post. I agree with your observations about
> resurrection bodies, but I don't think it disagrees with my thoughts on
> spacetime. (I want to emphasize again that I realize I'm speculating and I
> know that I can't prove these ideas, but I find them attractive.) Here's an
> analogy: eyes interact with electromagetism; ears interact with acoustic
> waves; noses interact with chemicals. It would be redundant if all these
> organs interacted with only the same thing. Analogously, the body interacts
> according to the dimensions of physics (what we call spacetime). It would
> be redundant if the purpose of the spirit is likewise to interact according
> to the same dimensions of physics. Why have both a spirit and a body if
> they serve to interact in the exact same sphere? So if they are not
> redundant, then what does the spirit interact with? I don't know, but I'm
> guessing it's not spacetime. But that doesn't negate the need for a body --
> even after the resurrection -- to interact with spacetime. If spacetime
> still exists, then we'll need a body. The ear doesn't negate the need for
> the nose or the eye, and v.v.
>
> I don't like the idea that God's eternity is timeless because i can't
> imagine God being frozen like a statue. I can't imagine a personality
> existing without time. This bothers me about Augustine's answer to 'what
> was God doing before the creation of the world?" I think Augustine made a
> mistake believing there are only two alternatives: time or no time. There
> could be some dimension besides time, which we can't even imagine in our
> physical brains, which give meaning to personality in perhaps a way that is
> far richer than what mere time affords. For that matter, there could be an
> infinite number of these dimensions. "Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard,
> nor has it entered into the heart of man, all that the Lord has in store for
> those who love him."
>
> I'm not disturbed by the questions about Hell because I imagine that Hell
> would be indescribable in terms of time since it does not exist in time, and
> hence it is something that our brain could never begin to apprehend. That's
> why (as George pointed out) Jesus used imagery.
>
> One could make the claim that even in this universe general relativity
> puts evil into a dualistic position with goodness because evil will always
> have ontological status "in the past." The passage of time (according to
> the view of most physicists, I think) is merely a mental state and the past
> is never annihilated. It always exists as the next-door-neighbor to the
> present, as does the future. But God sees this past evil, always existing
> in spacetime, through the cross and through his future judgement, and he is
> always in the position of being Lord over his creation (never dual to any
> part of it), so I think these are the real reasons (not a supposed
> annihilation of the past) that keeps evil from being dual to goodness or
> God. Likewise for Hell as it exists in its own dimensions, whatever they
> are, I would suppose.
>
> God bless!
> Phil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
> To: philtill@aol.com
> Cc: alexanian@uncw.edu; gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 2:55 am
> Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
> Hey Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your discussion on space/time issues, I think it
> ignores the strong indications that we will have resurrection bodies, not
> simply be disembodied "spirits" floating around. While, if we take Jesus as
> our only example, the resurrection body does seem to have capabilities that
> ours do not, it does not at all negate the fact that it is a physical
> existence.
>
> Also, concerning hell, I wonder if Jesus was perhaps accommodating to the
> "theology of the day", after all, there is no hell in the Old Testament.
> Beyond that, (and this is getting a little off topic), if hell is eternal,
> doesn't that create an eternal dualism between good and evil? Between
> heaven and hell? Does an eternal hell force us into dualism?
>
> Bethany
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:10 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
> Christ said quite a bit about Hell, far more than He did infant baptism.
> ;)
>
> Another reason I think the human spirit must be non-extended is because
> the spirit survives the body. If the spirit is not tied to the organization
> of particles in spacetime, then there is no reason (other than prejudice) to
> believe it is limited in the dimensions of those particles. From a
> positivist point of view, spacetime means nothing except relationships
> between particles.
>
> Also, particles and spacetime are part of the same physics. They are
> aspects of the same ontological entity. Spirit is not composed of particles
> and so we have no a priori reason to think that an aspect of physics
> (spacetime) would be an aspect of spirit.
>
> Our brains are tied to spacetime and we see everything from the viewpoint
> of spactime, and I'd guess we have been allowing that to prejuduce our
> thinking about spirits and about God. Why impose on spirits or on God the
> properties of spacetime, which as far as we know apply _only_ to physical
> particles?
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 8:41 am
> Subject: RE: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
> I think I know what Hell is. On this side of death, there is doubt about
> whether God is or is not. On the other side of death there is certainty.
> Hell is knowing for sure that God is and that you denied Him.
>
> Moorad
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu?>]
> *On Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:22 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
> Since we know next to nothing about hell, we're in a rather precarious
> position if we try to base any anthropological arguments on it.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* philtill@aol.com
> *To:* gmurphy@raex.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
> George,
>
> I forgot to include this reason why I think the human spirit may be
> non-extended in space and time: Hell.
>
> Why would God send an unredeemable creature that is extended in space and
> time into Hell rather than simply annihilating him? Annihilation means
> drawing a limit to the extension. I won't pretend to have an answer, but if
> the creature is spiritual and that spirit is not extended in time, then
> perhaps annihiliation is not even an option. Annihilation may look feasible
> only because we don't see the spiritual part of mankind that is beyond time.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: philtill@aol.com
> To: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 7:56 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
> George,
> thanks for the reply. Perhaps there aren't any theologians saying that --
> that's why I framed it as a question ("..., right?").
>
> So I have to retreat to a weaker statement. There are a number of reasons
> why I think it's at least plausible that humans have a spirit that is not
> extended in space or time. I recognize that these arguments are
> insufficient to prove anything, but I think they point the way to a possible
> answer to David's question. Like David, I feel the need for there to have
> been an original state of integrity. Otherwise, it feels (to me at least)
> as though God set mankind up with an unfair chance of sinlessness. I'd like
> to see the state of integrity somewhere, if not in spacetime.
>
> I want to point out that I agree with your position on Adam entirely.
> This proposal (put forward by CS Lewis in The Great Divorce) that humans may
> have an extra-temporal spirit only _adds_ one feature to your position.
> AFAICT it does not disagree with anything you said to David.
>
> One thing you said was,
>
> "a realistic picture of evolution will not let us do is hold on to the
> idea of a 'state of integrity' in the classical sense."
>
> This idea of man's extra-temporal provides for a 'state of integrity,'
> although in a non-classical sense. It says man had a very real 'state of
> integrity' prior to the fall, but this state of integrity was spiritual and
> outside time and that's why we don't see it historically. I used the words
> "prior" and "was" in the prior sentence because the state of integrity was
> causally prior to our fallenness although not temporally prior to our
> fallenness.
>
> Here are some musings on the idea of a non-extended human spirit:
>
> 1. Theologians do say that God is spirit and is not extended in
> physical spacetime, right? (another question) If so, then that is one
> example of spirit being not extended. Extension in physical spacetime is
> therefore not a general property of spirits, at least.
>
> 2. I think the idea of the wind -- "you don't know where it comes from
> or where it is going" -- is an excellent picture of God as one who is
> non-extended interacting with creatures who are extended. We feel God like
> wind interact with us in the here and now because that is where we are, but
> the coming and going of that interaction is something we cannot follow from
> place to place or time to time. It is a mysterious coming and going,
> seemingly from nowhere.
>
> 3. Similarly, interactions with angels must occur for us within spacetime
> because that is where we are, regardless whether they are extended in
> spacetime.
>
> 4. The description of angels in the Bible that seem to imply extension
> could easily be anthropomorphic or figurative language.
>
> 5. Really extension in spacetime means that we interact with particles
> according to the four known forces which have 1/r^alpha dependencies,
> alpha=2 for gravity or electrostatics, etc. The existence of "r" in those
> laws is the modern meaning of "extension" for a human body and brain
> composed of particles. Does a spirit follow those laws in interacting with
> the particles of this universe? If not, then what could its extension in
> physical spacetime even mean? From a positivist point of view, it may be
> meaningless nowadays to talk of extension in the physical universe if we
> don't define it in terms of particle interactions via forces. The notion of
> "spacetime" is not so indefinite as it was 200 years ago.
>
> 6. If angels are unextended, then that might explain why they appear to
> have no repentance, or why the devil seems to be not smart enough to know to
> stop rebelling, etc. Their apparent inability to change their direction may
> be because we are seeing a _projection_ of their unextended decisions into
> spacetime; not the making of decisions within spacetime.
>
> 7. The ultimate purpose of time may be so that Christ could enter into
> it and unite us to himself. If so, the creation of this spacetime comes
> causally after the fall.
>
> Again, I already recognize the inadequacy of these statements, but I think
> the idea is plausible and very interesting.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
> Apropos 1 below, what theologians do you have in mind? I don't know of
> any who say this, though of course that doesn't prove that there aren't
> any. When Robert Jenson, e.g., in his introduction to the locus on "The
> Holy Spirit" in *Christian Dogmatics* says "Thus spirit is
> self-transcendence; the liveliness of each life is precisely its origin and
> end beyond itself," he is pointing in a quite different direction. (He also
> notes that Greek *pneuma* & Hebrew *ruach *agree in picturing spirit as
> wind or breath, things that are extended.)
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* philtill@aol.com
> *To:* gmurphy@raex.com ; dopderbeck@gmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2008 1:15 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
> David,
>
> 1. Theologians say that a spirit is something that has no extension in
> space, right? When they say this, "space" refers to the ordinary space of
> our physical universe.
> ................
>
> ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
> ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
>
> ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
>
> ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.