Christian Dualism
Is anyone else worried about the dualism present in the hearts and minds (this is a joke) of many Christians today?I hear so many people talk about the immortality of the soul while almost gnostically despising the "flesh." We sing songs which bid us to believe that this world is not our home, we're just a passing through; and pastors tell families at funerals that their dead loved one is now perfect (apparently no physical body=perfect).
We're escaping this world? Our dead loved ones are perfect without a physical body? Or even more confusingly, they're running around on streets of gold??
I've been thinking about how anti-dualist I am, and I wonder if my position is untenable as well. I tend to think of the person as being completely wrapped up in the body; there is no separation of physical body and soul. If a person dies, he is dead (perhaps Paul's word "asleep" is more appropriate). This person is not thinking about anything, or flying around on clouds, or running on streets of gold. This person will only awake at the parousia when he as a corruptible dead person (or ashes or whatever) is made into an incorruptible live person.
The reason I think that my position might be untenable is that there are certain passages of scripture which seem to come off a bit dualist. For example: "Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord for we walk by faith, not by sight we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:6-8).
So what do you all think? Is the Christian faith a dualist faith? As I said, I need to flesh this study out quite a bit, so go easy on me!
posted by DrewDog at 9:45 AM
16 Comments:
I realize that it is just a parable, but in Luke 6 with the story of Lazarus and the rich man, it is interesting to note that Jesus tells of how Lazarus died and was carried to Abraham's bosom. At the same time, the rich man was buried and then was described as looking up from Hades.
Is this hypothetical within a hypothetical story, description of truth within a hypothetical story or actual events within an actual story?
oops! Make that Luke 16 (one-six)
Thanks, Aaron; good stuff.
One question: Don't you think that saying that we can be more fully clothed, implies that there is a we that is separable in some way from the clothes? In other words, isn't the person in this statement distinguished from the body? I hope your answer is no, because I rather like being a biblical Christian who is not a dualist!
Regarding Laz & the rich man, it is interesting to note that in this parable, Lazarus is not buried and his spirit taken, rather he himself (body and all) are taken to Abraham's bossom, while the Rich man himself (body and all) are buried in Hades (the grave).
As far as truth vs. hypothetical goes, I think His point is that the pharisees won't understand God's kingdom even if the messiah dies and rises since they can't understand it in the Torah. I don't think it is meant to teach us regarding the intermediate state. But, maybe it does. What do you think?
No, I think we should take the parable literally...ALL of it. THere is a grand canyon between Heaven and Hell and you can talk to people across it.
Sorry, Aaron; I must have been unclear.
My point was this: As soon as you say, "I'm wearing clothes," or "I'm in a tent," or whatever, you are distinguishing your self from something which is not yourself (clothing, tent, etc). Therefore, simply by making the statement that you are clothed, but will someday be more fully clothed, you are implying dualism.
My question was thus, is my reasoning here valid or fallacious (and I hope that it is fallacious since it would necessarily follow from this that Paul was some sort of dualist).
Did that clear things up, or make them more muddy?
I have never commented on a blog before, but I think this conversation is missing a very foundational discussion. Dualism is itself a technical term, and I don't think you've defined it yet. Are you really saying you are not a dualist? Perhaps you are just needing to say what kind of dualist you are. I have a hard time believing that as a thinking person and a Christian you believe you are nothing more than a physical being--Isn't the whole more than the sum of its physical parts? Drewdog has been alluding to this, I think. You may benefit from reading a little more, perhaps Moorland (sp?) and Rae--Body and Soul--as a starting point.
Thanks for a stimulating blog.
Welcome, anonymous. Thanks for posting. May I make a request of you? You don't have to identify yourself, but it would help if you typed some sort of nickname instead of anonymous. This is because a good friend of mine already posts under the name "anonymous," and I would hate to confuse people. Thanks!
Also, in response to your post, I would define dualism (for the purpose of this discussion, at least) as the view that human mental/spiritual phenomena are in some respects, non-physical.
[1]
And you'll probably be shocked to read that I indeed tend to think of myself as "nothing more" (as you put it, I would not; for it is a glorious miracle) than a physical being... But wait! Don't worry just yet. I also believe that I am an eternal being. The corruptible must put on incorruption, and the mortal must put on immortality.
Moreover, I do not think that Paul's differentiation between the flesh and the spirit have in mind any sort of dualism. Rather, the flesh refers to life lived in a rebellious, corruptible state (sometimes referring only to human life which is pre-parousia, and sometimes referring to Christians living as if they still belonged to the present evil age), while the spirit refers to human life lived in a redeemed, incorruptible state (sometimes referring to the present, where we are still mortal, but have been justified; other times referring the human life which is post-parousia, immortal, glorified).
What do y'all think?
BTW- I'm not arguing that we don't have a psyche; rather I'm arguing that it is an integrated part of the total soma.
Aaron, I agree with you that one maintains a bodily existence after death, but I believe that your argument that a soul needs a physical body may not necessarily be valid. God is spirit, yet is capable of doing all the things you stated that are dependent on having a physical body.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this as I know that you are a VERY well read individual.
I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, but I'd agree with the commentator that some of the terms being used here (body, soul, spirit, dualism) are being used equivocally, and so I wonder if some aren't talking past others.
One thing that needs clearing up is the bi-partite/tri-partite issue. It makes a big difference how one reads various statements by Paul, for example.
Another issue -- lurking unarticulated, it seems to me -- is the question of the difference between matter and spirit. Yet another area is this: how are we to conceive spirits? As bodiless entities? If bodiless, how is it that they are perceived by us? Or, does "body" admit of material and spiritual versions? That old argument about angels on heads of pins was struggling with precisely this question, and though it is mocked, it was a perfectly reasonable question that sought to discern and distinguish some of these issues.
I'd have to say -- knowing full well I'm probably going to be misunderstood here -- that I am a dualist, in this sense: all reality falls into two -- no more, no less -- categories: the uncreated and the created. The Creator/Creature distinction is as low as one can go, metaphysically. Attempts to go further (monism) generate a world-view that is expressly and profoundly anti-Biblical.
This fundamental dualism is "replicated" analogously throughout the created order. Sex, for example, is based on it. This is why the male/female relationship is used consistently throughout Scripture to communicate truth about God and the Creation, God and Israel, God and the personified Cosmos (Lady Wisdom), Christ and the Church. The male (though himself a creature) relates to the female in patterns, roles, and functions which take their shape from the Creator/Creation divide. There is more than a few places that suggest the spirit/matter distinction also replicates the fundamental dualism of what is real, even though spirits are themselves creatures.
It's a fascinating and important area of theology, but it admits of a few more thorny issues of definition that one supposes until one gets to dealing with the details.
bq
Aaron, I have not read the book, but I've heard much about it. I should probably give it a read before I dismiss it, but from what I hear, it is completly dualist (in a platonic and even gnostic sort of way, much like the view of most Christians today!). I'll tell you what, I'm not gonna buy it, but if you loan it to me, I'll give it a read.
Cheers
Yes, traditional fundamentalist Christianity is very dualistic. The good news is there is now a NON dualistic form of Christianity as taught in The Course in Miracles, or ACIM. Also, Eckhart Tolle and his books, including The Power of Now and his new book, A New Earth, Awakening to Your Life's Purpose explain in great detail the problems with dualisic traditional ancient thought and the new advanced thinking of today's Christian.
Hey, just stumbled on your blog. It is nice to know that there are others who see the problem (with Christian Dualism). I've devoted my whole blog to this one issue.
Mike Jones, Christian Monist blog
It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that we believe the literal interpretation of the bible as taught by wise old white men so we can vote Republican, Practice slavery, stone adulterers to death, and above all spread the truth that Jesus loves you very very much unconditionally- unless you don't believe it, then God will burn you in hell for eternity. LMAO.
Christianity is necessarily dualistic, because it teaches that your individual consciousness continues to exist even after your body is destroyed. So if a very pious fellow (we'll call him Brother Mike) happens to have his head whacked off with a cannonball, and he is in a state of grace etc., -- whatever requirements your particular sect of Christianity may have-- this fellow goes off to Heaven, and retains his identity as Brother Mike. Then he gets to "walk and talk with Jesus" and all the other lovely activities Christians advertise as the rewards of a righteous life.
If there is no afterlife, the whole of Christianity with it's doctrine of salvation is meaningless. And an afterlife requires dualism.
The understanding that consciousness completely depends on a particular biological architecture doesn't seem to have really penetrated, but I suppose as neuroscience advances, it will.
A good book on the subject is "A Vast Illusion". Time according to A course in Miracles. by Kenneth Wapnick, Phd.
Post a Comment
<< Home