[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Plotinus]

A soul dependent upon input from the material brain? That may as well just be the computational theory of mind.

No, because on this view the soul's existence isn't dependent upon the brain, which it is on the computational theory of mind. One might think that souls can survive without bodies, but when not attached to a body, they experience things very differently because they do not receive any input from the body.

Also, it's hard to see how the religious notion of a soul (which survives the death of the body) is compatible with it.

On the contrary, it's perfectly compatible with it! Theologians have always stressed that the experience of the soul after death is quite different from the kind of experiences it has during life (and during the resurrection period, when it is reunited with the body). E.g. Aquinas would say that, as the form of the body, the human soul's "natural" state is to be embodied, and the period when it lacks a body - in between death and resurrection - is an unusual state for it. It still experiences things in that state, of course, but in a completely different way from when it is embodied.

I'm beginning to see what that guy I linked to meant; anyone who can just "bash out" disposable essays of that quality isn't operating at the level of we mere mortals.

Well it's nice of you to say so!

Nevertheless, Wayback Machine appears to have saved most of them. The link in your signature to your story is broken though, and the download links that come up on Google look very suspect. Surely it's worth preserving?

Thank you for the link. I'll stick them somewhere safe - I hadn't thought of looking in archives like that. Yes, you're right about the broken link - I took it down because I wanted to enter the story into a competition (which I didn't win) - I might stick it back up at some point but it's a lot more effort than it's worth, really!

If Satan asked for forgiveness from God, could God in his infinite mercy give him reconciliation?

That depends on how you think reconciliation works. Some theologians (famously Gregory of Nyssa) have not only answered "yes" to this but thought that it would inevitably happen at some point, because there's only so far one can go in evil. Others of course would say "no", perhaps on the grounds that the atonement only applies to human beings.

 

[Berzerker]

God has some atoning to do

 

[Birdjaguar]

If Satan asked for forgiveness from God, could God in his infinite mercy give him reconciliation?

That questions is answered here:

1 Corinthians 15:

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Hello Plotinus! I hope things are going well for you.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm surviving, so can't complain...

 

[timtofly]

If Satan asked for forgiveness from God, could God in his infinite mercy give him reconciliation?

"If Satan asked", yes. Will God allow Satan to ask is the issue. If angels have no choice in the matter, did Satan rebel on his own?

The "if" could include that angels do have a choice to rebel, but that is the only choice they have. Adam had one choice, that seemed irreversible to the physical aspect of that choice. Are humans the only one's who have a choice at redemption. Most humans today do not even think that choice exist. Humans think they made the whole thing up in their imaginations. It seems to me that the only connection to the soul and spirit is in the mind though. Why does God have to answer to that point, much less the rest of the known or unknown?

 

[schlaufuchs]

It's not the predestination I dislike, it's the fact that they wrinkle out the most horrifying possible implications of it.

You may want to look at the Erasmus-Luther discussions regarding Freedom/Bondage of the Will. This is a topic which rests at the very heart of the Reformation.

It's worth noting in this debate that Luther's position is not really all that unorthodox. It's pretty straight-line Augustinian. Erasmus is criticized by other Catholics at this time for overstating the perceived Freedom of the Will, and thereby straying a bit too close to Pelagius.

Also Augustine-Pelagius would be worth looking at(?) (@Plotinus)

 

[Gori the Grey]

Some theologians (famously Gregory of Nyssa) have not only answered "yes" to this but thought that it would inevitably happen at some point, because there's only so far one can go in evil

An Episcopal minister I know put it this way: "Can even Satan hold out for all of eternity against God's love?" Interestingly reframed the issue, if nothing else. He might have been citing someone like Gregory; he was a learned dude.

 

[timtofly]

There may be a lost in translation point as well. Humans think and behave on a level that is not even relevant to God as a being. Knowing all on God’s part does not preclude that God even communicates love. Love, empathy, or any emotion, may be a knowledge point, but not an actual attribute of God. Perhaps it is only a part of the interface between God and humanity. Not that God is being deceptive, but the only way to truly communicate with humans.

God only interfaces with humans on God's terms, not human terms, while at the same time only let's humans see God on human terms.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

How relevant is Kant to theology? Did Kant believe in God?

 

[Birdjaguar]

God only interfaces with humans on God's terms, not human terms, while at the same time only let's humans see God on human terms.

And your source of this information?

 

[timtofly]

And your source of this information?

No one has come forward to state otherwise, but all sources indicate the statement.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No one has come forward to state otherwise, but all sources indicate the statement.

Terribly evasive, but OK. but certainly, you don't actually mean "all".

I come forward to say: God only interfaces with humans on human terms and humans only see god on human terms.

 

[timtofly]

Terribly evasive, but OK. but certainly, you don't actually mean "all".

I come forward to say: God only interfaces with humans on human terms and humans only see god on human terms.

I put it that way, because if the first half is on human terms, then God is not involved at all. Which seems to be the default truth if left up to humans.

The point was about why did God leave us to work everything out on our own. Some do not think that God is involved, but it seems that God is, just not the way we want.

The question has always been which religion has it right. None of them do. But you cannot throw out the Bible. It is God's terms. It is not connected to any religion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I put it that way, because if the first half is on human terms, then God is not involved at all. Which seems to be the default truth if left up to humans.

The point was about why did God leave us to work everything out on our own. Some do not think that God is involved, but it seems that God is, just not the way we want.

The question has always been which religion has it right. None of them do. But you cannot throw out the Bible. It is God's terms. It is not connected to any religion.

Everything we know and experience is on human terms because that is pretty much what we are capable of. Unless you have special access to god, any god, god's terms or god's methods are pretty unknowable. Any proposed description of those only comes to us through human based filters.

The question about "Why did god leave us to work everything out on our own?" is pretty different.

 

[Arakhor]

The question has always been which religion has it right. None of them do. But you cannot throw out the Bible. It is God's terms. It is not connected to any religion.

Moderator Action: Unless you too are a practising theologian, officious statements like these are not appropriate for this thread.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[onejayhawk]

Jesus makes reference to the sign of Jonah. Other than three days, nothing seems apparent. Am I missing something?

J

 

[timtofly]

Jesus makes reference to the sign of Jonah. Other than three days, nothing seems apparent. Am I missing something?

J

The other sign? There were two signs of Jonah mentioned, but a lot more to the story both about Jonah, signs, and Jesus. Jonah was not a prophet to the Jews. The other sign was that Jonah went to Nineveh, and the Judgment pronounced on them caused them to stop what they were doing and turn to God. Then allegedly God viewed them as more righteous than the Jews and used the Assyrians to attack the Jews. The word sign to the Jews is another term for miracle, but some miracle that set one apart from all the other miracle workers. Jesus was portrayed as going around doing miracles, but that did not seem to mean a lot to the Jews for several reasons. Jesus said that wicked people needed a sign, and the Jews begging for a sign was something that could not be given to them. Either because he did not view them as wicked, or they were going against themselves. Both Jonah and Jesus would bring hope to the Gentiles and more than likely to the detriment of the Jews in both cases. The sign of being dead (for all intents and purposes) for three days was Jesus giving them the sign they asked for but were not expecting. It was a prophecy and if it did not come true would preclude Jesus as he was portraying himself to be: the son of God. If it did not, he was just another charlatan performing miracles. The Jews never really viewed miracles as something miraculous, because any one could do miracles.

That is barely scratching the theological surface of the matter. Not to mention the implications signs meant then and now.

 

[Arakhor]

Jonah was not a prophet to the Jews.

Huh? He is one of the Trei Asar, the twelve minor prophets included in the last book of the Tanukh, which is essentially the Hebrew bible.

 

[timtofly]

Huh? He is one of the Trei Asar, the twelve minor prophets included in the last book of the Tanukh, which is essentially the Hebrew bible.

He was a Jewish prophet. He was not sent to the Jews though. He was sent to the Assyrians.