I think the soul exists in the realm of the spiritual, where free will
choices of man dwell. What in us makes moral decisions ? It certainly is
not the body nor the mind, but the soul. The soul is the seat of the "ought
to" or "ought not to." Surely animals do not make moral choices, do they?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Allen Roy <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
Cc: Darryl Maddox <dpmaddox@arn.net>; asanet <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: TE-man
>
>
>Allen Roy wrote:
>
>> When we talk about the soul and what it is, we have to go back in time
>> before science. We may try to find a scientific definition of a soul,
>> but I don't believe that that is what we were talking about here.
>> Since I believe that most everyone on this net are Christian, then we
>> would look to the Bible for what God has inspired his prophets to
>> define what a soul is. That is where the 4 points of definition which
>> I gave before came from.
>>
>> A soul = living person (by interpretative comparison
>> between KJV and NIV of Gen. 2:7) A soul [living person] =
>> body + breath of life. This equation is derived from Gen
>> 2:7 A soul [living person] /= (not equal) body - breath of
>> life /= body [not living person] (this is a dead body)
>> This is a logical deduction from Gen 2:7 A soul [living
>> person] /= breath of life - body /= breath of life [life
>> force] (a soul is not spirit [the life force] A soul may
>> have spirit but not be spirit.) This is a logical deduction
>> from Gen 2:7
>>
>> When we start using science we, as Christians, will use science within
>> the above definition of the soul. You have to first define what you
>> mean by a soul before you can attempt to use science to study the
>> soul. The same thing applies to "body," "breath of life" and "living
>> person." Science is not the end all in determining truth. We have to
>> first make philosophical assumptions and definitions and then we can
>> do science.
>>
> It seems to have been assumed in this discussion that the things
>said about "soul" are unique to humanity, but they aren't. The phrase
>used to describe the human in Gen.2:7, "living being" (_nephesh
>chayah_), is the same used for the other animals which God creates from
>the ground 2:19. Nor is humanity unique in being breathed into by God -
>cf. Ps.104:27-30.
> In classical "soul language" _all_ living things have souls.
>Plants have only a vegetative soul, animals an animate soul, & humans a
>rational soul. In fact, Gregory of Nyssa argued in his discussion of
>the Genesis accounts that humanity had to pass through the stages of
>first being merely alive, then animate, & finally rational - which
>brought him close to an evolutionary understanding of human origins.
> What is theologically distinctive about humans is not simply
>that they are rational in the sense of being able to think but that they
>are capable of language. (The Greek _logikos_ suggests both.) Thus
>(among other things) humans are able to "hear" God & be responsive to
>God's Word. I.e., what sets the human apart in both Genesis accounts is
>that God speaks to them & can expect trust & obedience.
> The Greek fathers tended to overemphasize rationality, sometimes
>interpreting the "image of God" entirely in these terms. That goes too
>far but rationality is certainly an important feature of the imago.
>Athanasius understood it to mean that humans were given a special
>participation in the Logos, who is the natural image of God, & this made
>them _logikos_. The entrance of sin into the world meant that this
>image was fading out & being effaced, so the Logos had to come to "sit
>for his portrait" again - hence the Incarnation!
>
>Shalom,
>
>George
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 09:54:48 EDT