what is soul?

music: Jon Foreman - In Love

Category:

Education

Tags:

• soul
• nephesh
• breath
• air
• jewish
• heart
• jon foreman

[tgeorge95]

hes back

[zthustra]

@legodesi

Are you saying that he has already been lectured to death and it is a total waste of time?

I figured that one out. My apologies for wasting all that valuable white space on the computer screen.

[legodesi]

@zthustra

zthustra, hxrtotally is one of the savvier theists on youtube. please don't presume that he needs lecturing.

[manutdfan4321]

"as dear pants for so my soul thirsts for you" I always loved that

[hxrtotally]

@zthustra I'm sorry that in 2000 years Christians have developed a nuanced appreciation of the Bible and philosophy, and that I would appeal to said Tradition in order to present a reasonable and defensible form of Christianity. Or did you want me to portray an easily refutable fundamentalist version?

[zthustra]

@hxrtotally

All I want to know is what Christians believe and why they believe it. And when they tell me "Bible" and then I say, "Great, let's talk Bible" and the suddenly, "Oh, I didn't mean Bible" that is where I go a bit nuts.

About the only reason I post is to point out that Christians don't believe "Bible". Christians beleive whatever they want to believe and then say "Bible" at the end in the hope that people like me won't be listening.

[hxrtotally]

@zthustra Historical/scientific explanations or facts were never what was focused on, nor was it ever taken that the Bible was meant to be a text inerrant on such things. Augustine stressed the distinction between matters of faith and natural philosophy (aka science), and the Alexandrian school interpreted the Old Testament to the neglect of its historical data.

You're not getting anywhere trying to dictate what Christians believe.

[zthustra]

@hxrtotally

"There has always been a general approval" is an interesting phrase. At the time these early Christian apologists were writing, there was general agreement that the Biblical text supported a beleif that the earth was flat, and later that it was the center of the known universe.

Modern Christian apologists go nuts on me and reject the flat-earth or earth-centric arguments that I make telling me we can't look there. But then they want me to go there for Origen or Aquinas? BS!

[hxrtotally]

@zthustra Reading it in a non-anachronistic sense is perfectly defensible, but I don't see why reading it in an anachronistic sense is wrong either. Within the Christian Tradition there has always been a general approval of allegorical interpretations (i.e. Origen), which are certainly anachronistic. In other words, there's more than one way to read the Bible, and reading it with a philosophical lens does no damage.

[zthustra]

@hxrtotally

Do you imagine that there is any way to read anything from the Bible and understand what the author was attempting to convey without putting it in the context of history.

Some people read the book and just imagine that all those words were written last week. That's why I don't care what Aquinas thought. He was looking at his copy 1500 years later and pulling conclusions out of his ass. You and I can read the text with more historic and scientific knowledge than he had.