bacht

Okay, but any belief in life after death is supernatural isn't it?

Elijah

I don't think so. Science may/will be who finally takes credit for actually pulling it off in the future, but the early Jews had a faith/mind over matter belief that they thought may pull it off as well. Belief in an afterlife is supernatural, believing in somehow man in the future figures out how to grab information from the past/space and reconstruct it then is probably wishful thinking but possible.

bacht

The example of every living thing is that they die, from microbes up to dinosaurs. Why should people be any different? Just because we don't want to die doesn't mean we won't, unless you think humans have special powers unavailable to the other animals.

Amaleq13

No, you need to read my posts more carefully. I have stated repeatedly that I understand you can choose to read the passages in this way but I have also repeatedly asked you for evidence suggesting this was what Paul actually had in mind.

Paul refers unapologetically and without disclaimer or explanation to the spiritual gifts his congregation had obtained from God and, elsewhere, claims that displays of such miraculous powers were helpful in obtaining converts.

I already addressed this blatant attempt to shift the burden. The references are prima facie to supernatural powers and the burden is upon you to establish that the words meaning something else.

I bet if you found an example of a known "metaphysical author" writing about such subjects, you might be able to answer that question. Have you even been making an effort to do this?

From the beginning, your position suggested to me that you were not sufficiently familiar with Paul but now I'm starting to wonder how much ancient metaphysical writing you've read. Given the certainty with which you made your original assertion, it is rather surprising that you don't have an comparison immediately at hand.

You've just made all this up on your own, haven't you? There isn't a single scholarly work or even ancient text that has suggested to you that this is how Paul should be read, is there? You just decided this was how it must be because you refuse to believe that the earliest Christians were just as immersed in superstition as modern Pentecostals. IOW and as I suggested at the outset, nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

No Robots

Some people want a bodily immortality, and this is quite an absurd wish. On the other hand, there is the desire for spiritual immortality, the desire to preserve that which is most dear to us, the inmost sanctum of our thought. And it is precisely this that is indeed immortal. However, it is not personal. There is only the one great I-self, of which all other I-selves are manifestations. Our self-awareness is the self-awareness of the One, which is eternal. The more we self-identify with the One and the more we relativize our particular I-selves, the more we come to see death as an illusion. Ironically, self-identification with the One is precisely what gives us a degree of personal immortality, in the sense that this self-identification with the One is the only way to truly allow our personality/originality to flourish, and thus to propagate beyond our physical death. Christ is the great exemplar of this principle: his self-identification with the One has made his own individual personality/originality immortal, constantly propagating itself in the thought of mankind.

andrewcriddle

Hi Amaleq

I think I basically agree with you about what Paul is saying, but, as well as making these claims about supernatural gifts within the Christian church, Paul also seems to be saying, (eg in 1 Corinthians 13), that, although these supernatural gifts are real, they are less important than things like love and forgiveness.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

I agree that immortality usually means the continuance of the self, the unique personality that is "I". But there is no way to prove that our essence or spirit or whatever joins some cosmic whole after our physical tissues die.

This idea is impersonal survival rather than personal, but it still implies that we contain something of cosmic value beyond our flesh. There is no empirical evidence that the universe is anything more than "atoms and void", or the flux of matter, energy & time.

No Robots

The great, hidden war among men is between those who uphold the reality of the ideal and those who uphold absolute materialism. Empiricism cannot demonstrate the Absolute, but it does demonstrate that matter is a construct of our thinking, that we construe reality in thought as matter, thus making thought primary and matter secondary.

Amaleq13

Agreed. I get the impression that he wasn't happy with the emphasis his Corinthian congregation was placing on the gifts and the apparent dissension that resulted.

This follows from Paul's explicit statement of intent ("Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.") but we find none of the subsequent text even approaches suggesting that the powers are not supernatural. This only serves to emphasize the disparity between Elijah's assertion and the evidence. Paul is claiming to want to offer clarifications about the powers they've been given but there is no trace of a metaphysical explanation for them. Instead, they are treated precisely as they are described; supernatural powers given by God.

Elijah

I posted referenced to platonic thought from the NT in post #33. I explained why metaphysics and supernaturalism wasn’t compatible and see no reason to believe that we should interpret supernaturally what we can understand rationally without some actual evidence that I should. It’s time for you to show how you came to this conclusion without “well everyone thinks this about how they thought then.” Actual evidence of this supernatural ideology that you claim is dominating the minds of early Christians. If we see platonic thought why should we impose supernatural thinking?

I’m not shifting the burden I can’t respond to your thinking unless I know how you have come to the conclusions.
What subjects are you looking for and who do you consider a metaphysical author? Have you read Plato’s dialogues?
I’ve been wondering the same about yourself, but who knows since you refuse to talk about your understanding of metaphysics either way, maybe it is me who doesn’t know what they are talking about or maybe it’s the one dodging the conversation at hand.

Plato is the philosopher most mentioned by early Christians and a copy of his republic was found with the Nag so a desire to understand his philosophy is only natural to someone who is looking to understand what is going on in their world. You have not taking the time nor the desire to do so for yourself and have decided to rest your back on what the majority thinks without providing any evidence to support your case. (Please feel free to prove me wrong!) I have no ability to offer scholarly support to this conversation because I don’t know how you are coming to your conclusions or on what grounds your are basing your objection.