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

In Phil's defense, I think that imagination has a place in theology. After
all Bernie, it is precisely our imagination that allows us to believe that a
block of solid metal is made up of billions upon billions of vibrating
atoms, since it is certainly not a conclusion we'd come to simply by looking
at it with the naked eye or touching it. I would also ask Dave to be
careful about casting around words like "constructed a God in his own
image". That's ridiculous, because every theologian does it. As soon as we
use language to begin to describe God, we bind him by human creations. If
we try to visualize him, we restrict him to the spacial/physical. The list
could go on.

Nor should we assume that "imagine" means random thought processes unaided
by logic and reason. In this case, Phil's argument that a timeless deity
would seem to imply a static deity seems, and that this seems to be
inconsistent with the revealed God of the Bible is the argument you should
be focussing on, not on the fact that he used the word "imagine".

Imagination can certainly lead us astray (Augustine couldn't imagine a God
who would take seven days to create the world, and thus came to the
conclusion that the world was created instantaneously, as would be fitting
of an eternal God), but let's not hold to any nonesense that we don't make
use of it in our own theological worlds.

Bethany
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> 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. "
>
>
>
> There are lots of things in science we also can't imagine. For example,
> take the hardest substance there is- a solid block of metal. Who can
> imagine that there are actually moving parts in there (electrons orbiting
> neutrons). Also, there is vast space in there (relatively speaking) between
> the atoms, and between the electrons and neutron within an atom. Someone
> once said the distance between a neutron and electron is like a pea (for the
> neutron) in the center of a sports stadium and a person in the stands (the
> electron), for our scale of relative distance.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
> "It's turtles all the way down."
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:44 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *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] *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.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 1 14:22:09 2008