Um. I'm sort of shocked that you, Gramps49, are apparently denying the physical resurrection. That's what you meant, wasn't it? Or am I misunderstanding? I mean, you are ELCA, right? I didn't think you folks did that.
It's not denying the physical resurrection--I would place it more in the I don't know category. Look at the story from John's eyes. Mary Madalene had told the disciples the tomb was empty. Peter and the Beloved Disciple both race to the tomb see it and then what? They go home. In Luke, it says the apostles considered the report as nonsense. Then comes the appearance of Jesus behind the locked doors. That, to me, is much more important then an empty tomb.
If it was a purely physical resurrection, Jesus could not have suddenly appeared to the disciples. Paul gives us another clue, though. He talks about the resurrection of the spiritual body. The resurrection is still a body but it is transformed, spirit filled
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
The enemy of faith is not doubt but certitude. As I said, this is in the I don't know category. This causes me to study the question. I don't have all the answers. Every theological insight, every philosophical shift, even every scientific breakthrough begins with "I don't know." I may never have a completely satisfactory answer to others; but, for me I think it is the process that counts.
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
Well said. 'If Christ did not rise from the dead we are all dead in our sins' says St Paul. True or not it is one of the central tenets of our faith.
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
It’s quite hard, this physical resurrection body issue!
Going way back to Creation, I think the Traditional view is that death entered the world by sin and therefore the Adam and Eve bodies were not originally intended to die. So I think when Paul was writing 1 Corinthians 15 he was probably of the mindset that there was no problem in claiming that Jesus’ resurrection body was the same human body in which he lived on earth. Yet he would have been “raised incorruptible”. I wonder? Did he believe that Jesus, being both human and sinless, would not have died naturally? I don’t know from scripture for sure. He certainly died fully human . We also hear from scripture that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more, death “no longer” has dominion over him. All I can say for sure is that he saw some reversal of what we call the Fall going on through the death and resurrection.
What is clear is that Paul saw that resurrection as the first fruit of the final resurrection of the dead. And then we have this pregnant phrase. “We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed. Be raised incorruptible”.
So following Christ, when we are raised from the dead we die no more. We are raised immortal. Hence for eternal life with Christ or for eternal judgment.
Is that what he meant by we shall be changed? It must surely in some sense be our bodies too. The bodies we were born in were always going to die. Being raised incorruptible must surely mean some bodily change?
From our perspective, knowing more than Paul did about the human bodies we have, how they age naturally, how we die naturally, we find we have quite major “yes but how” questions about the final resurrection of the dead and the nature of our resurrection bodies. If we die as children do we remain children eternally for example? If we die old do we remain old? As much as I can understand it, we will be recognisably ourselves. And that’s it.
I leave my confused cogitations with a simple thought. Just as the resurrection of Jesus was a great miracle, so will be the final resurrection. But the exact nature of our resurrection bodies is a mystery to me.
It seems perfectly fine to me to have a reverent agnosticism about that question. Following that reasoning, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a reverent agnosticism about the exact nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. From that point of view the various resurrection accounts are mysterious. Jesus was recognisably Jesus. But not immediately in the Emmaeus account. There’s a mystery here. And Paul says about the final resurrection that he is telling us a mystery. He sure is.
As a reader of the X-Men I have no conceptual problems with a physical body appearing in a locked room.
Kurt was one of my inspirations in becoming a Christian in the first place, and I definitely related to Kitty when I started reading in at least 3 different ways. ❤️
We played 'Behold, I tell you a mystery' at my wife's funeral.
Wonderful stuff.
@Barnabas62 - apologies for being pedantic. I don't think anyone here is disputing that there were dissenting groups and those who did not 'conform' to prevailing norms and received orthodoxy in earlier times. Some have already been mentioned. Lollards. Hussites. Waldensians.
I was referring to 'non-conformist' in its more technical sense, relating to those who could not sign up to the Act of Uniformity.
I appreciate that you are using it in a broader sense.
If it needs saying, I have a lot of respect for 'orthodox Dissenting' traditions, as @Jengie Jon has helpfully defined them.
Heck, I also have a lot of respect for groups like the Quakers who may 'cross the line' when it comes to received orthodoxy. I'd also admire the inclusive and welcoming tone of Unitarian groups even though I am thoroughly Trinitarian in my theology.
On the 'heretic' / 'heterodox' / 'unorthodox' sliding scale, I'd define them as follows:
Heretic - knows what's 'orthodox' but doesn't care and rejects it.
Heterodox - retains elements of orthodoxy but with areas of 'personal choice' that may differ from the 'official' line. These views may go beyond accepted theologoumena in whichever church body or tradition/Tradition the person is involved with but not to the extent that they topple over into heresy. Where the line is drawn on that will vary according to which traditions /Tradition we are dealing with.
[i[/i]Unorthodox - I would use this in a milder way to refer to areas of custom and practice that may deviate from an agreed standard. 'Pastor So-and-So has a somewhat unorthodox way of taking up the offering on a Sunday morning ...', 'Fr Such-and-Such has a rather unorthodox way of organising the procession in his parish ...', 'The worship-leader has a rather unorthodox way of starting the medley of choruses used in their church's worship ...,' 'That organist has a rather unorthodox way of playing particular hymn tunes ...,' and so on.
Technically it’s anachronistic to use the term to describe earlier groups and I accept that criticism. I just know I’m right about the mindset. I’m in the tribe so I recognise the tribal similarity of the earlier groups. They do quack like a duck and walk like a duck!
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
You are misrepresenting me @ChastMastr. I said, "The enemy of faith is certainty." I can put it this way. The opposite of breathing is not breathing. The enemy of breathing is choking. Saying I oppose faith would mean I’m an atheist. Saying I’m facing an enemy of faith means I’m questioning a particular dogma — not rejecting faith itself.
The trumpets will indeed sound! Like you, I'm happy to stay with the mystery. Good enough for St Paul, good enough for me!
I really enjoyed the link - a splendid period trumpet wonderfully played. Wow!
A tangent.
Yes, I thought that was a great, joyful and moving recording.
Roderick Williams (a great bass) has talked movingly about the deep spiritual impact of singing religious music and his engagement with the music was obvious.
And the trumpeter! The Boston Baroque orchestra engaged the use of a natural, valveless, trumpet, often used with Baroque music. Very difficult to play, I believe, but on this occasion played sublimely well.
@Barnabas62, I think there’s some confusion about what I was talking about with regard to nonconformists. I wasn’t expressing confusion about what distinguishes nonconformists or anything like that. I was just noting that in a definition of “Evangelical,” it seemed strange and UK-centric to me to include “nonconformists” as part of the definition since, by definition, nonconformists as a discrete category exist only in the UK. There is no such thing, for example, as a “nonconformist” in a US context, because there is no established church for someone not to conform to.
Without question, Christians in other parts of the world may share many characteristics with British nonconformists. But categorizing groups as “nonconformist” can only happen in a British context. That was my point.
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Most Christians and indeed most biblical scholars even if they aren't Christian, believe that Jesus appeared to his disciples and close followers after his death. Opinions range from hysteria induced hallucinations to him reanimating his dead body, hanging around them for 40 days, and flying upwards to heaven at the Ascension. It's no simple matter to sort through what the Bible actually says, because as ever, the devil is in the detail of interpretation.
Although Mark, usually thought to be the oldest gospel, clearly believes in the Resurrection, there are no appearences. The original gospel ends at 16.8. There were three later endings added, and the one most of us have in our Bibles, is simply a rehash of what's in the other gospels. A man in a white robe informs the followers that he will go ahead of them to Galillee where they will see him. In Matthew, the man has become an angel who rolled away the stone, but they again go to Galillee to see him on a mountain, perhaps the Mount of Transfiguration? But some of them don't believe.
In Luke, he appears to them in Jerusalem, and in John he is seen both in Jerusalem and by the Sea of Galillee. But people often fail to recognise him. I think it's also worth remembering that the only eye witness account of the Resurrection is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He mentions the appearences to the disciples, including once to over 500 people. But he adds the appearence to himself to the list. Paul most certainly didn't see Jesus in his bodily form, but as a Being of Light. Who went on to teach and reveal many things to him.
Given these often contradictory ideas about when, where, and how he appeared, I think it's reasonable to hold a strong belief in the Resurrection, but stretching it to be too dogmatic about what form it took, and whether it was physical or just spiritual. Either way, Jesus is ascended to the Father and is still with us.
The final general resurrection. Do you have a clear belief about what sort of bodies we will have?
It’s clear that Paul believes that somehow we will put on immortality for mortality, incorruption for corruption. And Jesus is somehow the first fruit of that general resurrection. That’s Traditional, biblical and I believe Lutheran.
So our resurrection bodies will last for ever; we’ll put on immortality. How?
And what does that imply for Jesus’ resurrection body?
My answer is I haven’t a clue how that’s going to work! Except that somehow we’ll be recognisable. As will Jesus be.
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
You are misrepresenting me @ChastMastr. I said, "The enemy of faith is certainty." I can put it this way. The opposite of breathing is not breathing. The enemy of breathing is choking. Saying I oppose faith would mean I’m an atheist. Saying I’m facing an enemy of faith means I’m questioning a particular dogma — not rejecting faith itself.
I would consider distrust the enemy of faith even more, then. Again, in the context above—not when real evidence to reconsider one’s trust or belief comes up, which I’d say is a different matter.
As far as I am concerned, any group that starts judging others with different opinions as heretic has already lost a major part of the plot of Christianity. Heretic hunting has an awful history.
As far as I am concerned, any group that starts judging others with different opinions as heretic has already lost a major part of the plot of Christianity. Heretic hunting has an awful history.
One can correctly classify certain doctrines as heretical without persecuting people who believe them.
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Not a physical object, but entirely physical processes. So there's no non-physical spark or essence needed so that we are not just corpses.
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
How long have you got?
Philosophy of mind is a diverse field.
There are a few hardcore physicalists who think the mind is an illusion (Daniel Dennett was I think one). I think that's incoherent (how can you have illusions without a mind?)
The majority view I think is that the mind is a function of the brain - the mind is what the brain does. Or it exists in the same way that software exists on a computer. I personally think the direct explanatory power computer metaphors for the brain is limited but they're undeniably tempting.
A slightly more nuanced view, which seems to me most plausible, is that the mind is what we human beings do, using our whole bodies but mostly our brains.
There are some philosophers who think the mind is non-material, either created by the brain's activity, or having independent existence, but they're a definite minority.
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Not a physical object, but entirely physical processes. So there's no non-physical spark or essence needed so that we are not just corpses.
I don’t think “biologists” (as if *all* biologists) believe this way. There are atheist biologists, religious biologists, and all manner of biologists. This is really more of a philosophical/metaphysical issue than one for the physical sciences, as @Dafyd points out.
The current trendy (there’s that word again) philosophical approach to these things may indeed be, sadly in my view, materialist, but it may change as these sorts of philosophical fashions do down the line.
As far as I am concerned, any group that starts judging others with different opinions as heretic has already lost a major part of the plot of Christianity. Heretic hunting has an awful history.
One can correctly classify certain doctrines as heretical without persecuting people who believe them.
Whereas jesus said he didn't come to judge the world, the institutional/orthodox church institutions have acted as though they have to correct this "deficency" in Jesus' teaching. He wasn't orthodox enough.
As far as I am concerned, any group that starts judging others with different opinions as heretic has already lost a major part of the plot of Christianity. Heretic hunting has an awful history.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
I mean, I agree that heretic hunting and persecution has an awful history.
But I wouldn’t say that once groups that judges another has always “already lost a major part of the plot.” I’m reminded that in 1982, the 21st General Council of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (since 2010, the World Communion of Reformed Churches) declared apartheid sinful and the theological justification for it heretical, and suspended South African denominations that endorsed those theological justifications for apartheid.
One can correctly classify certain doctrines as heretical without persecuting people who believe them.
I would quibble with that just slightly. I don’t think “one” can classify certain doctrines as heretical. I’d say classification of certain doctrines as heretical can only come from an appropriate authority—an ecumenical council, a church synod, etc. “One” can then recognize that x doctrine has been classified as heretical by y authority. (Whether “one” recognizes that classification as legitimate may be another matter.)
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Not a physical object, but entirely physical processes. So there's no non-physical spark or essence needed so that we are not just corpses.
I don’t think “biologists” (as if *all* biologists) believe this way. There are atheist biologists, religious biologists, and all manner of biologists. This is really more of a philosophical/metaphysical issue than one for the physical sciences, as @Dafyd points out.
The current trendy (there’s that word again) philosophical approach to these things may indeed be, sadly in my view, materialist, but it may change as these sorts of philosophical fashions do down the line.
I didn't personally interpret @Dafyd as suggesting that this issue wasn't part of medical science - the medical humanities are still part of medicine and play a huge role in medical treatment (the impact on how neurodiversities are treated immediately springs to mind). The scientific method is materialist by definition and I would be rather alarmed to see a neuroscientist for eg use a non-materialist approach. I don't see how a materialist approach would be at all in conflict with said neuroscientist being religious.
Philosophies of mind are necessarily informed by new discoveries in neurology and other mind-related sciences, which is not to say that they're necessarily progressive - they can certainly be reactionary - but ime the philosophical aspect and the biological aspect are interwoven in terms of medical practice (to greater or lesser degrees of success). I can think of quite a lot of examples of medicalised discrimination driven by a belief in a kind of non-material essentialism of the mind, which is by no means limited to or even particularly more common in religious scientists
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Not a physical object, but entirely physical processes. So there's no non-physical spark or essence needed so that we are not just corpses.
I don’t think “biologists” (as if *all* biologists) believe this way. There are atheist biologists, religious biologists, and all manner of biologists. This is really more of a philosophical/metaphysical issue than one for the physical sciences, as @Dafyd points out.
The current trendy (there’s that word again) philosophical approach to these things may indeed be, sadly in my view, materialist, but it may change as these sorts of philosophical fashions do down the line.
I didn't personally interpret @Dafyd as suggesting that this issue wasn't part of medical science - the medical humanities are still part of medicine and play a huge role in medical treatment (the impact on how neurodiversities are treated immediately springs to mind). The scientific method is materialist by definition and I would be rather alarmed to see a neuroscientist for eg use a non-materialist approach. I don't see how a materialist approach would be at all in conflict with said neuroscientist being religious.
Philosophies of mind are necessarily informed by new discoveries in neurology and other mind-related sciences, which is not to say that they're necessarily progressive - they can certainly be reactionary - but ime the philosophical aspect and the biological aspect are interwoven in terms of medical practice (to greater or lesser degrees of success). I can think of quite a lot of examples of medicalised discrimination driven by a belief in a kind of non-material essentialism of the mind, which is by no means limited to or even particularly more common in religious scientists
The misuse of the belief in the non-material essentialism of the mind does not mean it’s not true, of course. (And “progressive”/“reactionary” aren’t necessarily good/bad or true/false, but I’m not sure you were suggesting that…)
Comments
It's not denying the physical resurrection--I would place it more in the I don't know category. Look at the story from John's eyes. Mary Madalene had told the disciples the tomb was empty. Peter and the Beloved Disciple both race to the tomb see it and then what? They go home. In Luke, it says the apostles considered the report as nonsense. Then comes the appearance of Jesus behind the locked doors. That, to me, is much more important then an empty tomb.
If it was a purely physical resurrection, Jesus could not have suddenly appeared to the disciples. Paul gives us another clue, though. He talks about the resurrection of the spiritual body. The resurrection is still a body but it is transformed, spirit filled
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
Well said. 'If Christ did not rise from the dead we are all dead in our sins' says St Paul. True or not it is one of the central tenets of our faith.
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
It’s quite hard, this physical resurrection body issue!
Going way back to Creation, I think the Traditional view is that death entered the world by sin and therefore the Adam and Eve bodies were not originally intended to die. So I think when Paul was writing 1 Corinthians 15 he was probably of the mindset that there was no problem in claiming that Jesus’ resurrection body was the same human body in which he lived on earth. Yet he would have been “raised incorruptible”. I wonder? Did he believe that Jesus, being both human and sinless, would not have died naturally? I don’t know from scripture for sure. He certainly died fully human . We also hear from scripture that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more, death “no longer” has dominion over him. All I can say for sure is that he saw some reversal of what we call the Fall going on through the death and resurrection.
What is clear is that Paul saw that resurrection as the first fruit of the final resurrection of the dead. And then we have this pregnant phrase. “We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed. Be raised incorruptible”.
So following Christ, when we are raised from the dead we die no more. We are raised immortal. Hence for eternal life with Christ or for eternal judgment.
Is that what he meant by we shall be changed? It must surely in some sense be our bodies too. The bodies we were born in were always going to die. Being raised incorruptible must surely mean some bodily change?
From our perspective, knowing more than Paul did about the human bodies we have, how they age naturally, how we die naturally, we find we have quite major “yes but how” questions about the final resurrection of the dead and the nature of our resurrection bodies. If we die as children do we remain children eternally for example? If we die old do we remain old? As much as I can understand it, we will be recognisably ourselves. And that’s it.
I leave my confused cogitations with a simple thought. Just as the resurrection of Jesus was a great miracle, so will be the final resurrection. But the exact nature of our resurrection bodies is a mystery to me.
It seems perfectly fine to me to have a reverent agnosticism about that question. Following that reasoning, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a reverent agnosticism about the exact nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. From that point of view the various resurrection accounts are mysterious. Jesus was recognisably Jesus. But not immediately in the Emmaeus account. There’s a mystery here. And Paul says about the final resurrection that he is telling us a mystery. He sure is.
Kurt was one of my inspirations in becoming a Christian in the first place, and I definitely related to Kitty when I started reading in at least 3 different ways. ❤️
While I was writing! And not just humming! Behold, I tell you a mystery
Glorious!
The trumpets will indeed sound! Like you, I'm happy to stay with the mystery. Good enough for St Paul, good enough for me!
I really enjoyed the link - a splendid period trumpet wonderfully played. Wow!
We played 'Behold, I tell you a mystery' at my wife's funeral.
Wonderful stuff.
@Barnabas62 - apologies for being pedantic. I don't think anyone here is disputing that there were dissenting groups and those who did not 'conform' to prevailing norms and received orthodoxy in earlier times. Some have already been mentioned. Lollards. Hussites. Waldensians.
I was referring to 'non-conformist' in its more technical sense, relating to those who could not sign up to the Act of Uniformity.
I appreciate that you are using it in a broader sense.
If it needs saying, I have a lot of respect for 'orthodox Dissenting' traditions, as @Jengie Jon has helpfully defined them.
Heck, I also have a lot of respect for groups like the Quakers who may 'cross the line' when it comes to received orthodoxy. I'd also admire the inclusive and welcoming tone of Unitarian groups even though I am thoroughly Trinitarian in my theology.
On the 'heretic' / 'heterodox' / 'unorthodox' sliding scale, I'd define them as follows:
Heretic - knows what's 'orthodox' but doesn't care and rejects it.
Heterodox - retains elements of orthodoxy but with areas of 'personal choice' that may differ from the 'official' line. These views may go beyond accepted theologoumena in whichever church body or tradition/Tradition the person is involved with but not to the extent that they topple over into heresy. Where the line is drawn on that will vary according to which traditions /Tradition we are dealing with.
[i[/i]Unorthodox - I would use this in a milder way to refer to areas of custom and practice that may deviate from an agreed standard. 'Pastor So-and-So has a somewhat unorthodox way of taking up the offering on a Sunday morning ...', 'Fr Such-and-Such has a rather unorthodox way of organising the procession in his parish ...', 'The worship-leader has a rather unorthodox way of starting the medley of choruses used in their church's worship ...,' 'That organist has a rather unorthodox way of playing particular hymn tunes ...,' and so on.
Technically it’s anachronistic to use the term to describe earlier groups and I accept that criticism. I just know I’m right about the mindset. I’m in the tribe so I recognise the tribal similarity of the earlier groups. They do quack like a duck and walk like a duck!
Don't forget I was part of 'the tribe' too for many years.
You are misrepresenting me @ChastMastr. I said, "The enemy of faith is certainty." I can put it this way. The opposite of breathing is not breathing. The enemy of breathing is choking. Saying I oppose faith would mean I’m an atheist. Saying I’m facing an enemy of faith means I’m questioning a particular dogma — not rejecting faith itself.
A tangent.
Yes, I thought that was a great, joyful and moving recording.
Roderick Williams (a great bass) has talked movingly about the deep spiritual impact of singing religious music and his engagement with the music was obvious.
And the trumpeter! The Boston Baroque orchestra engaged the use of a natural, valveless, trumpet, often used with Baroque music. Very difficult to play, I believe, but on this occasion played sublimely well.
As I said, glorious! Just glorious!
Without question, Christians in other parts of the world may share many characteristics with British nonconformists. But categorizing groups as “nonconformist” can only happen in a British context. That was my point.
What, they consider the mind a physical object?
I'm not talking about origin--
whether it arises from the brain etc. Simply how they classify the mind itself. Surely they admit it exists?
Although Mark, usually thought to be the oldest gospel, clearly believes in the Resurrection, there are no appearences. The original gospel ends at 16.8. There were three later endings added, and the one most of us have in our Bibles, is simply a rehash of what's in the other gospels. A man in a white robe informs the followers that he will go ahead of them to Galillee where they will see him. In Matthew, the man has become an angel who rolled away the stone, but they again go to Galillee to see him on a mountain, perhaps the Mount of Transfiguration? But some of them don't believe.
In Luke, he appears to them in Jerusalem, and in John he is seen both in Jerusalem and by the Sea of Galillee. But people often fail to recognise him. I think it's also worth remembering that the only eye witness account of the Resurrection is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He mentions the appearences to the disciples, including once to over 500 people. But he adds the appearence to himself to the list. Paul most certainly didn't see Jesus in his bodily form, but as a Being of Light. Who went on to teach and reveal many things to him.
Given these often contradictory ideas about when, where, and how he appeared, I think it's reasonable to hold a strong belief in the Resurrection, but stretching it to be too dogmatic about what form it took, and whether it was physical or just spiritual. Either way, Jesus is ascended to the Father and is still with us.
A simple question or two.
The final general resurrection. Do you have a clear belief about what sort of bodies we will have?
It’s clear that Paul believes that somehow we will put on immortality for mortality, incorruption for corruption. And Jesus is somehow the first fruit of that general resurrection. That’s Traditional, biblical and I believe Lutheran.
So our resurrection bodies will last for ever; we’ll put on immortality. How?
And what does that imply for Jesus’ resurrection body?
My answer is I haven’t a clue how that’s going to work! Except that somehow we’ll be recognisable. As will Jesus be.
Are you clearer than me?
I would consider distrust the enemy of faith even more, then. Again, in the context above—not when real evidence to reconsider one’s trust or belief comes up, which I’d say is a different matter.
One can correctly classify certain doctrines as heretical without persecuting people who believe them.
Not a physical object, but entirely physical processes. So there's no non-physical spark or essence needed so that we are not just corpses.
Philosophy of mind is a diverse field.
There are a few hardcore physicalists who think the mind is an illusion (Daniel Dennett was I think one). I think that's incoherent (how can you have illusions without a mind?)
The majority view I think is that the mind is a function of the brain - the mind is what the brain does. Or it exists in the same way that software exists on a computer. I personally think the direct explanatory power computer metaphors for the brain is limited but they're undeniably tempting.
A slightly more nuanced view, which seems to me most plausible, is that the mind is what we human beings do, using our whole bodies but mostly our brains.
There are some philosophers who think the mind is non-material, either created by the brain's activity, or having independent existence, but they're a definite minority.
I don’t think “biologists” (as if *all* biologists) believe this way. There are atheist biologists, religious biologists, and all manner of biologists. This is really more of a philosophical/metaphysical issue than one for the physical sciences, as @Dafyd points out.
The current trendy (there’s that word again) philosophical approach to these things may indeed be, sadly in my view, materialist, but it may change as these sorts of philosophical fashions do down the line.
Whereas jesus said he didn't come to judge the world, the institutional/orthodox church institutions have acted as though they have to correct this "deficency" in Jesus' teaching. He wasn't orthodox enough.
I mean, I agree that heretic hunting and persecution has an awful history.
But I wouldn’t say that once groups that judges another has always “already lost a major part of the plot.” I’m reminded that in 1982, the 21st General Council of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (since 2010, the World Communion of Reformed Churches) declared apartheid sinful and the theological justification for it heretical, and suspended South African denominations that endorsed those theological justifications for apartheid.
I wouldn’t describe that as losing the plot.
I would quibble with that just slightly. I don’t think “one” can classify certain doctrines as heretical. I’d say classification of certain doctrines as heretical can only come from an appropriate authority—an ecumenical council, a church synod, etc. “One” can then recognize that x doctrine has been classified as heretical by y authority. (Whether “one” recognizes that classification as legitimate may be another matter.)
I didn't personally interpret @Dafyd as suggesting that this issue wasn't part of medical science - the medical humanities are still part of medicine and play a huge role in medical treatment (the impact on how neurodiversities are treated immediately springs to mind). The scientific method is materialist by definition and I would be rather alarmed to see a neuroscientist for eg use a non-materialist approach. I don't see how a materialist approach would be at all in conflict with said neuroscientist being religious.
Philosophies of mind are necessarily informed by new discoveries in neurology and other mind-related sciences, which is not to say that they're necessarily progressive - they can certainly be reactionary - but ime the philosophical aspect and the biological aspect are interwoven in terms of medical practice (to greater or lesser degrees of success). I can think of quite a lot of examples of medicalised discrimination driven by a belief in a kind of non-material essentialism of the mind, which is by no means limited to or even particularly more common in religious scientists
The misuse of the belief in the non-material essentialism of the mind does not mean it’s not true, of course. (And “progressive”/“reactionary” aren’t necessarily good/bad or true/false, but I’m not sure you were suggesting that…)