Notable quotes:
- Bultmann--"Man does not have a soma. Man is a soma."
- Robert Jewett--"Paul never uses psyche in the strictest sense of 'soul.'"
- Green--"For Barth, natural science had little relevance for theology, for science comprises a competing ideology... In the history of the interaction of faith and science, however, Barth's is a minority position" (22).
Green rightly points out a number of challenges this issue presents. He gives some helpful definitions of the spectrum from reductive physicalism to radical dualism, with middle positions like holistic dualism and various other forms of middle ground monism. My goal is not to do full reviews with these, however.
2 comments:
I really think the old wineskins is relavant here. The way one understands man's spirit is important in understanding how man is distinct from animal, or are they?
I just don't seek dogs reacting to abuse the way humans do, when they have a sense of "self". Those who live and ocntinue to live under abuse have no "self" developed. But, those who do can resist such mis-treatment and do what is necessary to defend or take a stand for themselves.
Animals just don't do this. Is the "self' the "soul"?
Okay, so just today I received a facebook message from a pastor asking me for recommendations on good books for theology of the body (a subject largely untouched by Protestants, at least in the holistic and practical way pastors need right now), and I mentioned this very book in my recommendation. I haven't read it in its totality, but I think the blend of neuroscience and theological anthropology is pretty fascinating and worthwhile to read for pastors just so they know what's out there right now.
However, what are your thoughts on his view of the intermediate state?
Post a Comment