Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 11:19:07 EST

  • Next message: David F Siemens: "Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?"

    At 08:27 AM 31/01/02 -0700, David F Siemens wrote:

    >On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:08:50 EST writes:
    > > I'm hardly qualified to get into this discussion, but I will venture
    > > far
    > > enough to suggest the book "Whatever Happened to the Soul?", edited
    > > by Warren
    > > S. Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony (1998, Fortress
    > > Press). In
    > > general the book supports a non-reductive monism. In a chapter on
    > > the
    > > biblical aspects, theologian Joel Green make the following comment
    > > (in a
    > > footnote at the end of his paper), "In the end, these results can
    > > only be
    > > provisional since we have examined small portions of representative
    > > biblical
    > > materials. As references to other scholars indicate..., however,
    > > the
    > > prevailling view in the SCHOLARLY study of Scripture is that the Old
    > > and New
    > > Testaments support a monistic rendering of the human person. This
    > > has not
    > > been true in more POPULAR circles, perhaps due in large part to the
    > > influence
    > > of Cartesian categories in Christian hymnody and in
    > > medicine."[p.173]
    > >
    > > Karl
    > > *********************
    > > Karl V. Evans
    > >
    > >
    >A group of us went through the book rather carefully. I was very
    >disappointed. First, it essentially accepted a totally naturalistic
    >approach with God tacked on. It seems to me deistic rather than theistic.
    >Second, Green covered all the verses that could be given this
    >naturalistic twist but neglected those that made difficulties. It is so
    >easy to declare that "my view is scholarly, you poor benighted and
    >Cartesian-deluded souls." But this is of the nature of propaganda rather
    >than demonstration. Of course their view is scholarly: so was the most
    >radical Higher Criticism. And it is the claim of the Jesus Seminar.
    >I will grant that it is not possible to give a scientific description of
    >soul or spirit without reductionism. But deity also must be reduced to
    >anthropomorphic projection or something similar to fit scientific
    >categories. I do not see rational grounds for denying the latter if I
    >accept the former.

    This is the second time that I see a reference to Descartes. Where did
    Descartes give an account of the human soul in this sense? I never heard
    his name mentioned in this connection, one way or the other. It is true
    that I do have trouble with many hymns, which in my opinion are not
    biblical. And that is not only when they sing about "soul."

    If you can read Dutch, I can give references to some books which talk about
    this founded on the bible.
    I am not looking for a "scientific" description of "soul." And I realize
    that "soul" is often used for the total human person. That is why I think
    that "soul" is not just a part of the human person, but means the total
    human person.

    Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 11:16:45 EST