Are we immortal or not?

[steve]

jriccitelli,

You like to post here, obviously. We who read would like to read your posts more, if you would engage the arguments, and not merely engage in gratuitous sarcasm.

[jriccitelli]

I am not new to these debates, Paidion does not comment on certain verses so I am left to hypothesize.
I have been posting here for a year, I have rarely engaged you in any discussions since last march, you never seem to make any comment on my posts, yet the two times you finally did, seemed rather coming from the blind side and rather aggressive, if not sarcastic also.

Paidion is another topic, he seems to post all day and puts out what seems by many as Unorthodox, he has freewill and time to do so all day, no problem. But, sometimes without a response (he posts so much of the same thing it would be impossible to answer every thing he repeats). I do not know how much you are in agreement with him as you too are getting harder to get a radar fix on. I am troubled and not amused over what I thought was wonderful and sound biblical teaching coming from you and around this forum, now been reduced to Universalism and other things such as Paidion promotes here.
Paidion has responded to me in a certain fashion, I do not recall responding to anyone but Paidion this way, and I am only responding to him in like fashion. Maybe I am trying to show the lack of substance to of his arguments sometimes with humor, but Paidion recycles his position daily, while glossing over some points.
At one time I was sending people to this forum, and turning them onto your show, but now I am troubled over that decision, this is my last ditch effort to see what you (and others here) really believe, as it did not come across in the radio show. I will leave soon, I suppose. I did come here thinking I found a friend, as I would like to discuss, and learn about something I agree with, more often than trying to defend the Bible 'only'. Alas.

[steve]

I definitely have my areas of disagreement with Paidion. He and I have had lively debates—especially on the subject of God's role in giving the Old Testament laws and in allowing human suffering. I am not sure that I agree with him on the atonement—but that is partly because of my own inability (at my present state of knowledge) to confidently embrace one view of the atonement, over all others, as the final and complete word on the subject.

I might even disagree with him on universalism—though not stridently.

My philosophy is that those who love Jesus must (by definition) love the Truth. Those who love the truth will follow the evidence and weigh arguments. Those who hear something contrary to their tradition, and then become so offended by it that they cannot even read the challengers' arguments, or see the weakness of their own, are not really lovers of truth at all.

If I someday decide to be a universalist, it will only be due to the impossibility of resisting the scriptural arguments for the view. I already abandoned the traditional view (which I held and taught for 30 years) only because the scriptural case dissolved under examination. The Conditionalists' case still seems strong to me, but certainly not airtight.

I have known from my youth (and am more firmly convinced of it today) that all theology is about God. The Bible was not given to provide random answers to our 30 most-perplexing and unrelated questions, with non-contextualized proof texts, each fitting into its properly-labelled pigeonhole. Christianity is about God: His character; His purposes; His story; His outcomes. All of these are like spokes radiating from the hub of God Himself. Whatever proves to be true about hell will be the best news an infinitely good God could have imagined and engineered. If annihilation is the best He can do, then that is what it will be—and He will just have to learn to live with the disappointment, along with the rest of us.

[jeremiah]

hello john,

I am not new to these debates, Paidion does not comment on certain verses so I am left to hypothesize.

are you suggesting that since the samuel question look2jesus posted at 3 am this morning, and was not yet responded to by noon, was therefore not going to be commented on by any of three to which the question was asked???

[Paidion]

I'm sure you're all aware of the story involving king Saul, the witch of Endor and Samuel. To me, that is a difficult story to fit in with Monism. How do you interpret those events?

I think I remember that Samuel, while living, said that He would not communicate with Saul again — so it seems odd that he would communicate with him after death.
The word translated as "witch" is correctly rendered as "medium" or "necromancer" in other translations. She specialized in communicating with the dead, which was forbidden by God. So if a person wanted her to "bring up" a dead person, she did so. But was it the dead person she brought up? Or a demon impersonating the dead person?

My maternal grandfather and his friend went to see a medium when they were teenagers, just for something to do. His friend asked the medium to bring up his dead mother. An apparition appeared which looked and talked exactly like the friend's mother. The friend was astounded. Then my grandfather asked to speak to his mother. The medium also succeeded in bringing up his mother also. An apparition and a voice — exactly like his mother. The only problem was that my grandfather's mother had not yet died! Demons are not omnicient. Apparently the demon impersonating his mother didn't know that she was still alive.

My sister-in-law told me about her friend (We'll call her "Jane") who went to visit her friend (we'll call her "Nancy"). Nancy's mother was away that evening and the young girls didn't have much to do. Then Nancy got the idea of bringing out her mother's ouiji board and playing with it. It seems that Nancy's mother used the ouiji board as guidance for her life. When the girl's began to use it, it spelled out answers to their questions, to their utter amazement. Then it claimed to be a person who had died about two centuries previously. It gave a first and last name. The girls looked it up in a history book and found the name! However, the history book gave a modern spelling of the name which differed from the spelling the ouiji board gave. The history book said the man had been a criminal who had been put to death. Then the girls asked the "spirit of the criminal" what he had done in order to have been sentenced to death. Then the ouji board began to move and bounce in a manner which the girls interpreted as anger. They became afraid and put the thing back up on the shelf.

I think it's very common for evil spirits to try to impersonate dead people. As I see it, they try to influence humanity to accept the notion of their being "an immortal spirit which inhabits a vessel of clay" and flies off somewhere at death. In that way, they deceive people into denying or at least minimizing the emphasis on, and the importance of, the resurrection of all people which was promised by Jesus and His apostles.

[look2jesus]

I thought I would go ahead and post the pertinent portions of the story here.

Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had lamented for him and buried him in Ramah, in his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the spiritists out of the land…And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophet. Then Saul said to his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “In fact, there is a woman who is a medium at En Dor.” So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.” Then the woman said to him, “Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the spiritists from the land. Why then do you lay a snare for my life, to cause me to die?” And Saul swore to her by the LORD, saying, “As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul!” And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.” So he said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down. Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do.” Then Samuel said: “Why then do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy? And the LORD has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.” 1Sam.28 NKJV

So, Paidion, is it your contention that the woman brought up a demonic spirit?

[jeremiah]

good morning look2jesus,

doesn't "spirit" strike you as a strange rendering of "elohim"? if you've you discussed this matter with glenn peoples, then you probably are aware that monists and physicalists are not monolithic in their explanation of this event.

it simply does not say she or anyone saw the spirit of samuel, it says she saw a god coming up out of the earth (i know elohim can mean gods, but since saul asked her what his form was, i conclude she only saw one "god"), then describes his form which to my mind sure sounds like a physical body, and then saul perceives that it was samuel. what exactly do you find difficult to "fit in" with monism in this story? (just so i know where you're coming from, since dualists are not monolithic in their explanation of 1 samuel 28 either.)

grace and peace..

[mattrose]

A pretty good amount has been discussed since my last appearance in this thread. I'll try to catch up with 7 brief talking points.

1. I want to thank Paidion and Jeremiah for their graciousness in dialogue.

2. Jeremiah asked about why I insist on the 'immaterial' aspect of man. We've already discussed a number of passages that seem to suggest that (at least to me). Aside from Scripture, I use church-tradition, reason, and experience to form my beliefs. All 3, I believe, lend themselves to belief an 'immaterial' aspect. Haven't most of the church's great theologians believed in an immaterial aspect? As for reason, it is my understanding that, physically, we are basically completely new people about every 7 years... but amidst these enormous physical changes, we remain who we are. That continuity, it seems to me, is best explained by the continuation of an immaterial aspect. Further, on the reason front, hard-line monism falls into too many of the same problems as philosophical naturalism. Is free will even possible if we are just a bunch of material? As for experience, I find it hard to fully dismiss the numerous reports of outer-body and near-death experiences. In light of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience... I, myself, think the better question is 'why NOT believe in the immaterial aspect?' Unless I have a predetermined opposition to the spiritual realm (like a philosophical naturalist), which Christians clearly don't, I'm not sure why I would aggressively defend such a position.

3. Jeremiah asked if I think the immaterial part (I'd prefer 'aspect') conscious during the intermediate state. Does it have personality? I would guess that they are in some way conscious, especially conscious to the fact that they are incomplete. I admit this guess will not be satisfying, but I plead ignorance!

4. Jeremiah pointed out that he and I may differ mainly in regard to our understanding of the 'breath of life.' I interpret that as fitting with the immaterial aspect of man, Jeremiah sees it merely as oxygen. He rightly points out that the animals also had the breath of life (Genesis 1:30). There is, however, a difference between the animals and man... that being the 'image of God.' I think the question 'what constitutes the image of God?' is one of the most fascinating in all of Scripture. The Bible says that God is spirit. I think that part of the 'image of God' has to do with the endowment of a spiritual (immaterial) aspect. I connect this with the fact that the animals are said to have the breath of life (oxygen), but God personally breathed into Adam (oxygen plus?).

5. Paidion wonders if my position really qualifies as monism. I do grant that it is not monism in the sense that paidion and Jeremiah mean it. But I also am not at home amongst dichotomists who seem to think the immaterial aspect may exist happily in an independent state. I base my labeling preferences on reacting against the more common errors of our time, in my opinion. Thus, since platonic and gnostic errors are very common, I'd prefer to label myself a monist and spark conversation against those errors. I have more in common with Christian monism, I think.

6. Jeremiah jokingly compared me to jello , which is funny b/c when I read authors that dance around the questions (a lot of my favorites do, it bugs me to no end! I prefer to be clear in my positions, but I'm finding more and more than the evidence lends itself to caution. Dogmatic stances are almost never justified, it seems to me. So I do end up hard to pin down, not because I'm avoiding an issue, but because I'm actually not pinned down, haha

7. Look2Jesus asked about Samuel and the witch of endor. I, personally, see no good reason to say it was not Samuel's spirit (apparently clothed with Samuel's 'look' while simultaneously invisible to Saul!). I also note that Samuel is none too pleased about the situation. Why? Either his spirit had been at rest (dormant in God's hard drive) or enjoying God's presence. Clearly, though, he was unhappy to be back in the earthly realm minus a resurrection body.

[look2jesus]

Hello to you Jeremiah,

I did find it surprising that the word “elohim” was used. That said, given the circumstances (that she was a medium; that Saul asked her to call up Samuel; and that SOMETHING appeared to her), I’m not sure that the term she used is all that important. The word was used, at times, to refer to the judges of a town and Samuel was one of the greatest Judges. It’s hard to know what the woman meant by the use of elohim, but, regardless, it’s obvious that some kind of supernatural manifestation appeared.

Before using that term, the text says that when the woman saw Samuel she cried out. It is of note, I think, that it is the writer himself that supplies this information to us. He states it as a fact. He is not giving us the opinion of any of the characters in the story. As the narrator of the events he is filling in the gaps for his reader’s sake. And what he says is, the woman saw Samuel—not some other spirit or demon or whatever—but Samuel himself.

Immediately following this, the writer again is narrating and he tells us that Saul perceived that it was Samuel. In this case, one could reasonably argue that it was something else besides Samuel that Saul perceived, but that he was mistaken. But then the narrator continues with his own words saying, “Now Samuel said to Saul…” and then he goes on to recount the conversation between Samuel and Saul. So twice, now, we have the writer of the story (dare I say the inspired writer of the story) telling us that Samuel appeared.

These are the primary reasons for believing that Samuel (in some form other than bodily) manifested himself after death. Some secondary arguments could be made based on the content of the conversation recorded between Samuel and Saul. Samuel refers to previous prophecy which he had spoken to Saul, which the Lord had brought about; and he also brings a new prophecy to Saul’s ears informing him of his soon demise (which is fulfilled to the letter just three chapters later). It hardly sounds reasonable that God would allow a demon to represent himself as Samuel; to prophesy as Samuel; and that that prophecy would be dead-on accurate, and then not give us one hint that this is the case. Not only is there not a hint of this, on the contrary, the writer matter-of-factly tells us that it is Samuel.

As to my own view of the monist/dichotomist controversy, as I had previously indicated, I haven’t studied it that much. I do believe that man has a non-material part to his makeup and I’ve never noticed, nor has it been brought to my attention, anything in the Scriptures that would give me pause in holding to a dichotomist view of things. Actually, a lot of what Matt said I could go along with. What I’ve often wondered is “why Monism” in the first place? One hardly, I think, would come to that view simply reading through the text. Are there some serious scientific or philosophical problems with holding to some form of dualism? Where’s the beef?

Blessings to you, as well, brother!

[Paidion]

Thanks again for your post, Matt. I think I understand your position better all the time.

Further, on the reason front, hard-line monism falls into too many of the same problems as philosophical naturalism. Is free will even possible if we are just a bunch of material?

I assure you that though I consider myself "a hard-line monist", I do NOT believe we are "just a bunch of material". Even a bicycle is not "just a bunch of material." You can dismantle a bicycle and pile up the components and you have "just a bunch of material", which in its entirety is NOT a bicycle. It will become a bicycle only if someone reassebles it.

I do agree with you that there is a "spiritual aspect" of a human being. (I prefer to call it a metaphysical aspect). Adam was purely material until God breathed the breath of life (or the "spirit" of life) into that body. That made the body alive, and it therafter possessed this "spiritual aspect." The living Adam had self-awareness. He was conscious.

The brain is physical, but the mind is somehow metaphysical. In a post-graduate course in philosophy at the University of Manitoba, I tried to make a case for "The metaphysical self" as opposed to the human being being purely physical, being much not much different from a sophisticated robot. Such a robot might be constructed to be so similar to a human being, that few could tell the difference. It may look human, cry out in "pain" if you poke it with a needle, "see" objects, "hear" voices, and answer questions, and even offer solutions to practical problems. But would it have a consciousness in the sense that we have? I say "no". Even with these fancy functions, it has no awareness of self, or anything else for that matter.

The root of our discussion seems to be whether or not this metaphysical aspect is such that it is separable from the body and thus can survive death. I think not. I can't see how an aspect of a person could survive death. One aspect of a person I know is her joy. Can her joy somehow survive her death?

If I understand you correctly, you think the metaphysical self can somehow survive death, and it might then exist in a semi-conscious state in which it feels incomplete, and will never feel complete until it is joined to a body. I find it difficult to distinguish this idea from dichotomy. I realize you think of yourself as a "soft monist" and that the "spiritual aspect" and the "physical aspect" of a human being are but two different aspects rather than two different entities. But I have difficulty is seeing either of these aspects as surviving independently with self-awareness. It seems that the two must somehow be integrated in order that there be self-awareness.

I realize that the resurrection body is as unlike our present body as the wheat plant is different from a grain of wheat — that it may be able to pass through physical material as the risen Christ passed through an unopened door. Yet, it seems that resurrection body is necessary for awareness to exist. It seems that Christ can so impart life to it, that the same metaphysical self which once existed will exist once again.