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

I don't think "merely analogical" is a fair characterization. Analogical
doesn't require something less than the known thing from which the analogy
is drawn. You're certainly right that the characteristics you've mentioned
are part of the Christian conception of God as well as the Christian
conception of the human person. But remember that these are human
characteristics that to some extent comprise what it means to be made
in God's image. We in a sense are "mere analogies" of Him. We know what it
means to "love" or to "hate injustice" in human terms, so we have some sense
(that dreated analogia entis) of what this means in divine terms, but only a
whiff -- we don't really know exactly what these things mean for God because
He is ineffably beyond us.

I might argue that being bound by "changes in time" is a part of our
creatureliness that is not part of the image of God.

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:00 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> while God is certainly ineffable, "personhood" is surely so fundamental to
> our understanding of God that we can't explain it as merely analogical. The
> ability to love, the ability to hate injustice, the ability to remember and
> to draw rational conclusions -- these characteristics define personhood. I
> can believe that for God the ability to love and to hate are more than is
> possible in mere human personhood, but never less. To say his personhood is
> a mere analogy somehow seems to indicate that it is missing something from
> the "real" personhood of humans. But if it is missing nothing from real
> human personhood, then it must be real personhood, right? It can be more,
> not less.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: philtill@aol.com
> Cc: dfsiemensjr@juno.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thu, 1 May 2008 9:31 am
> Subject: 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
> ------------------------------
> 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.