Bookmark

Note THIS article is something that really interests me. It kind of relates to my incomplete review of Godzilla if only remotely. I never took the resurrection of the body (as told by Christ) to be literally the actual body that one once possessed. I took it metaphorically, or, a new body, as it says.

I always assumed the resurrection of the body that they spoke of was a heavenly body, not this crude matter. I still think that is what was meant, for why raise such a body again? If it is to be the same body – literally – would it not be prone to the same failings as the original/same?

I’ll have to read the article in a more metaphysical mood. I have found over the last two years that these ideas make more sense on a certain “mental level” , or approach.

I am always leery of such trappings as attempting to bring the great mysteries into the wink of current stretchings on man’s scientific grasp. I wary of such things because I think, if we ever get to have a look under the hood of this thing called being, or existence, or Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh, no science will cover it, no human concepts will encompass it nor penetrate it. Agape, as Aristotle’s celestial bodies upon the unmoved mover will be the proper order.

I view such attempts as I do understanding heaven to be a place of harps, clouds and angels with wings. It is cute and quaint, but it is a human construct, image making – it is a tool, a map even – with the understanding that the tool is not the object and the map is not the road.

One would think that if Christ himself did not put the wonders of heaven into literal terms, how or why could we? Likewise, why assume that the resurrection of the body is literal? After all, it is a far different thing for Lazarus to arise than it is for Socrates. Or one dead for thousands or millions of years.

And, one has to wonder, why, if God made man with an immortal soul, would he have to bother with such a thing as raising an old body of scattered atoms?

Advertisements

10 responses to “Bookmark

  • taichiwawa

    Like you, I keep coming back to the topics of experience, language, knowledge, and reality to address religion.

    A word is not the physical marks or the sounds one makes; those things are just arbitrary expressions of a word.

    Learning our particular society’s language (manipulating the symbols that have already been ascribed to experience) certainly speeds up the process of acquiring knowledge — though language posses its own limitations.

    We experience much more than the words available to represent the experience. What is the written word for the aroma of new rain on dry fields to a child on a hot summer day? I don’t know if there is such a word but I can personally attest to the existence of the sensory experience.

    Some of our perception and faculty for making symbols results in mathematical modeling of physical data, though sometimes we mistake our models (mathematical and otherwise) for the Truth (capital “T”).

    All of these things and the focusing agent — the “I” or self within us that receives, filters, and interprets the data — create our “Reality.” (note well the quotation marks).

    The modern outlook is to favor the scientific over the vagaries of the experiential. But this misses the whole or mistakes the part for the whole, the sound or mark for the word. If science is “cold, hard, facts” then that is all there is and it all really doesn’t much matter in the long run — it may be real in its particular language system but it is arbitrarily so.

    On what I believe is a more compelling source of knowledge, we recognize our own real being and the being of others. It is a different order of being than the elements which express it.

    _________________

    “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

    But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

    When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

    For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
    _______________________

    By the way, that “charity” is the English translation of the Greek “agape” (ah-gah’-pay) “unconditional regard, appreciation, love.” I saw the word in your post but I wasn’t sure if you were using it or the other agape (ah-gayp’) “open-mouthed as in astonishment.”

    • bensira587

      I was using “agape” in the sense of the original meaning of charity – as love. Although I see no reason, now that you brought it up, for the other sense not to be completely applicable as well.

      Relating to the topic. My parents were recently recommending a movie to my wife and I – Heaven is For Real (they are both “simple” Christians – and by that I mean the opposite of Catholic – no philosophy, no nuance). Love them to death, but… I was already aware of the story. And it illustrates something touched on above, the image, the map, becoming the reality.

      Doubtless the child was raised in a family where he was conveyed images of heaven and of angels with their wings and the clouds and everything. Those are the result of artistic renditions.

      Supposing such things as heaven and hell exist, it does not exist a few miles above my head, nor several miles below my feet. Or to the left of you nor the right of I. The closest I have heard, from a modern Catholic perspective, is that hell is a “place” or state of perpetual separation from God, a state of complete separation that is not even achievable in the earthly body.

      The opposite would be… well, the opposite. But, if such “places” exist that would be about the extent of it as far as our knowledge would go. You can’t take an inventory of it, describe its decor etc, etc.

      The modern outlook is to favor the scientific over the vagaries of the experiential.

      I couldn’t agree more. And I find that to be an egregious viewpoint. There are people that equate an emotion or a thought to its chemical elements corresponding in the brain. In one sense it is an infinite regress (or, at least terminating in first experience of the organism – or even the first sensation of that organism – or even the DNA sequences of that organism which were also determined by the DNA of its predecessors and their ancestors; all the way back to the first amoeba, and it (if certain evolutionary theorists were right (I don’t think they are)) upon the last sequence of the crystals before it replicated itself into a proto-organism) at least of that aspect of the all science outlook.

      I am tickled pick that we can measure lightwaves with angstroms and the chemical composition of canvases, but that will never ever ever clue you into Caravaggio’s Narcissus or Raphael’s Three Graces nor Klee’s Three Flowers. Nor will measuring your brain juice and electro-chemical brain activity with some super-EEG tell you why or how you love your wife, nor whether or not you should be faithful to her, nor give you any clue to what is truth (except for what the instruments are telling about your brain’s chemical-electrical state) or justice.

      I could go on forever with such a topic, but dogs must be walked… you know, the vagaries!

    • SMM

      Sorry to comment on a now 4.5 mo. old post, but I just happened here first today and was reminded of an article I also saw just today. Serendipity? Providence? I don’t know, but thought you might appreciate Charlton’s take (ejected old editor-in-chief of Medical Hypotheses).

      http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-great-lie-hearsay-evidence-of.html

      PS: Mormon GIRLS. Really? Never! I thought only the Scientologists sent out the girls.

      • bensira587

        No problem, comments welcome anytime. I’m on vacation with my family at the moment but I did give it a quick look over. It looks very interesting, I’ll sit and maul with it when I get back.

        Yes! Mormon girls, they were so very pretty and polite. Mormons know promoting that is for sure.

        Are you the same SMM from Mr. Wright’s site? There is someone there with the same or very similar name although I do not know if I have communicated directly with the (you?) person before.

  • taichiwawa

    “Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structures of its theories rise, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.”

    ~~ Karl Popper

    • bensira587

      Interesting. I have never read Popper.

      Note I am not despairing of the pursuit of physics. But I think they should be satisfied with their pile for the time being. Gather more data and stop with the wild theorizing. I think it hurts their science in the long run. It becomes a parlor game.

  • taichiwawa

    I ran across this word today and thought I’d pass it along: petrichor. It doesn’t change the basis of my argument, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: