Spiritual & Physical//Natural & Supernatural
Do the poor really have less knowledge of God? (Jer 5:4)
Elucidation: Why are human factors involved with people’s knowledge of God and their salvation, rather than these two things coming solely from the Holy Spirit? And isn’t this also unfair? And yet it seems to me that being poor is no hindrance to living a holy life.
God is a spirit and his form is that of a spirit. I thought spirits were invisible, having no dimensions. Then how could God have a hand and back and face? What’s more, how could some abstract concept – goodness, be seen visibly? (Ex 33:18-23)
What does it mean that God spoke the world into being? He didn’t have to speak. He could have just willed it.
So my point here is that there must be some kind of physicality even in the spiritual realm.
Gn 18:8, 13-14, 16-17, 19:3, Lk 24:41-43 What’s this about God and angels having bodies, and before the Incarnation? If an angel can take on physical form, what’s the difference between an angel spirit and human spirit?
Jdgs 2:1 What was the angel of the Lord doing in Gilgal? It's like he was just hanging around or something, or maybe patrolling, the way Satan patrols. (Jb 1:7)
I don't see how there can be any struggle in the spiritual realm since it's spiritual. When we fight, we fight physically. If our will cannot be done, we can always use physical might to enforce it, which is where government's power ultimately rests. But angels fighting is like ghosts fighting. Or do they fight like wizards? (Though this is depicted in movies [skip to 2:25 for the action], it doesn't make much sense if you think about it, because how can you determine who is stronger?, and this is partly why I bring this up here.) (Dn 10:13) Now there are other kinds of fighting, as during a debate, which is a battle of minds and ideas, and even in an actual physical war, it isn't always the stronger army that wins, but the smarter one. Even so, the angelic fighting depicted here is something I can't imagine, because I don't see what they could fight with (I mean, the tools they would use), or how one angel could hold another back. Holding back implies a physical limitation.
So, this is really speculative, but I can't help but think that there's something physical even in the spiritual. Not only does the above example concerning angelic fighting make me think this, but other examples in the bible as well. For example, the description of the cherubim in Ezk (10:9-22). Isn't it strange that the cherubim's spirits reside in the wheels beside them, and that these are separate from their bodies, but that the 2 go together, always moving with each other? It reminds me of human bodies and spirits, how they go together and yet aren't to be confused with each other. But then you have to ask, "Well, why is there a separation?" Of course, this is definitely one of the weirder passages in the bible, but that's all the more reason to pay attention.
Now the next thing I want to talk about doesn't directly address the question, but it's certainly related.
We experience the world through our 5 senses, which I'd like to argue (partly in favor of the UQ), is actually 4 senses, since taste and smell are basically the same thing. I've noticed that not all physical manifestations of the spiritual are manifested through all 4 senses. For example, beauty is seen and heard (music), but we don't feel, taste or touch beauty. Things might feel, taste or smell good, but that's different from capturing the essence of beauty. It's interesting, however, that the converse, ugliness, is only seen, not heard, since while things may be cacophonous, they're not ugly. Cacophony is just irritating, while ugliness is pure repulsion (note: I'm only describing ugliness, not giving a definition).
Another example to look at is truth. Truth is best exemplified as light, which is visually perceived. We don't think of truth in terms of sound, touch, etc. What, after all, would truth taste like?
Let's take dirtiness. Certainly things look, and smell dirty, but I don't think this could be equally applied to touch and taste. (Well, I guess this is partly because we try not to eat dirty things.) For sure things don't sound dirty (except when we use the word in a metaphorical sense, which I'm not talking about here).
Some concepts can be symbolized by a color -- purity is represented by white; war, courage, blood, passion -- these are symbolized by red. I don't think all colors have an inherent symbolism to them, however. Purple, for example, is often used for royalty, but that's just by happenstance, since the purple dye used since ancient times was too expensive (or even outlawed) for commoners. But this doesn't mean that purple is completely without it's own ability to evoke emotion or sentiment. It's generally considered a sad or cold color, along with blue, which it's next to on the spectrum, just as red, yellow and orange are considered happy, warm colors. I won't go into color as a physical manifestation anymore, since I could probably devote a whole section to this topic and I want to keep things orderly here.
But since I'm on the topic already, I'll mention the symbolism of objects. It seems to me that these are more prominent in more traditional or folkloric stories. Certain objects just seem to have a mystical quality about them. A book, especially I nice, big, fat, dusty book, is quite magical. It obviously signifies deep knowledge, often of a serendipitous kind. If you were to replace all the tomes seen in movies with e-readers, it just wouldn't be the same. Sure, they do the same thing, but, it just doesn't cut it. So, too, with the liturgy. Imagine if the priest, during the readings, held up his smartphone (to reverence it), and said, "The gospel of the Lord!" Yes, it's definitely the gospel of the Lord, but it doesn't feel like it.
Other objects loaded with meaning are keys, doors, mirrors, stairs and pathways, jewels, boxes (the more ornate the better) and I could go on. I once made a list of these, but I'm not sure if I still have it. Well, I'll try to see if I can dig it up and include it here (if I can remember to get around to it). But I think you get the point. If not, I can tell you objects that aren't loaded with meaning -- blankets, toilets, buckets, chairs, most foods (I think we can make an exception for the apple), plates, and most anything electronic or "modern" (like billboards and bus stops).
Which leads me onto a somewhat tangential, though related topic -- how the modern world seems so ugly. This isn't a blanket statement -- some cityscapes and architecture are really stunning -- but given that so much of the modern world is man-made, artificial, mechanical and clashes with its natural surroundings, I really think that quite a lot of it is an eyesore. A parking lot is just about one of the ugliest things on earth. So too, a picket fence made out of wood is so much easier on the eyes than a chain link fence -- especially if it's adorned with barbed wire on the top. Even if the paint is peeling, it still looks better than the chain link. I actually have this topic posted under Beauty in the Philosophy section, so I won't go into this anymore, but it is related to this question, so I thought it appropriate to go into it a little.
What about what I'll call "philosophical synesthesia"? I know most of us aren't synesthetes, but we all are in the philosophical sense. After all, we might describe the smell of a rose as "soft", but the smell of horse radish as "sharp". Pastel colors are soft. It's interesting, though, that I don't think you can say that certain colors are sharp -- maybe intense, or even jumpy if it's neon, and even jarring if you have 2 colors beside each other that are each other's complementary, but not sharp. A song be might described as grating, if you hate it, or soothing, even though the original purpose of these terms was to describe physical (touch) sensations. Some songs even evoke a certain scene in my mind, not just an emotion, but maybe that's just because I'm strongly visual. Words, too, can either sound like what they mean or not. Solomon Shereshevsky, the famous mnemonist, once complained that the Russian word for "pig" - svinya, was far too beautiful for it, and I readily agree. (Shereshevsky had his own problems with memory, synesthesia, and word association, which I won't go into here, but you can read about a fascinating account here.) We could probably come up with an endless list of examples, but I think you get the point.
What's up with these physical prayers? (Naaman -- II Kgs 5:14, Hur -- Ex 17:9-12) and then musical prayers? (I Sm 16:23, II Kgs 3:15)
Jn 5:3-4, 7 (3-4 in ESV note 5) If it's God's will that they be healed (and anything that happens is in God's will) then why doesn't he just hear their prayers and heal them? Why must they go through a physical ritual?
What does it matter that he do the signs with a staff? (Ex 4:17, 20)
Why would God use a log to make the water sweet? Couldn’t he just have Moses say “Be sweet” and it would be sweet without any intervening agent? (Ex 15:25)
Why should their victory depend on holding out a javelin? Is this some kind of magical spell? I don't see how a physical act (holding out the javelin) should have the spiritual depending on it for success. (Jos 8:26) See also Ex 17:8-13 Shouldn't their victory depend on God and not on whether the staff is held in a certain position or not?
Another example is when Jesus healed a blind man by mixing his own spit with some dirt to make a salve for the man's eyes. (Jn 9:6-7) There's at least one other time when Jesus healed a blind person by just healing them (Mk 10:51-52 [Bartimaeus]), so what's up with the salve? And it's pretty gross too.
Well, this is a really difficult question. I guess I'll take this in the direction of looking at the same thing from a fictional point of view. We know that in fairy tales, sci fi, etc, characters often use magic wands, staffs and other objects to affect a change. Many times they'll at least use a formula (words) to do so (much as God did when he made the world, though I find it hard to see how his "words" could be words in a human sense [ie, physically spoken]). You could make the argument that in these fictional worlds, the magical object in question really does possess magical powers, and is therefore necessary, and that this is not the case with God (which is true). However, this would be taking these fictional stories too seriously. What's really important is why we (humans) find it necessary to include these magical objects in our stories when we could very well make up a story without them, just as God can do without physical prayers/rituals, etc to enact what he wills.
You could say that it's because we as physical beings living in a physical world appreciate physical magic. Sure, but that's kind of just asking the same question (after all, we wouldn't make up stories like this if we didn't like it that way), and so it all goes back to the ultimate question -- why are we physical?
You can take another stab and say it's because it makes the story more interesting, which I think is true (I mean, the whole story of the search for the holy grail revolves around this very point), and I think this is a more promising tack to take. (Btw, this harkens back to a point I made in the previous question, in which certain objects are more meaningful, and therefore, more magical, than others. Going after the holy grail is worth an adventure -- going after the holy plate [used to hold the body of Christ at the Last Supper], isn't as motivating.)
Elucidation: Why are human factors involved with people’s knowledge of God and their salvation, rather than these two things coming solely from the Holy Spirit? And isn’t this also unfair? And yet it seems to me that being poor is no hindrance to living a holy life.
God is a spirit and his form is that of a spirit. I thought spirits were invisible, having no dimensions. Then how could God have a hand and back and face? What’s more, how could some abstract concept – goodness, be seen visibly? (Ex 33:18-23)
What does it mean that God spoke the world into being? He didn’t have to speak. He could have just willed it.
So my point here is that there must be some kind of physicality even in the spiritual realm.
Gn 18:8, 13-14, 16-17, 19:3, Lk 24:41-43 What’s this about God and angels having bodies, and before the Incarnation? If an angel can take on physical form, what’s the difference between an angel spirit and human spirit?
Jdgs 2:1 What was the angel of the Lord doing in Gilgal? It's like he was just hanging around or something, or maybe patrolling, the way Satan patrols. (Jb 1:7)
I don't see how there can be any struggle in the spiritual realm since it's spiritual. When we fight, we fight physically. If our will cannot be done, we can always use physical might to enforce it, which is where government's power ultimately rests. But angels fighting is like ghosts fighting. Or do they fight like wizards? (Though this is depicted in movies [skip to 2:25 for the action], it doesn't make much sense if you think about it, because how can you determine who is stronger?, and this is partly why I bring this up here.) (Dn 10:13) Now there are other kinds of fighting, as during a debate, which is a battle of minds and ideas, and even in an actual physical war, it isn't always the stronger army that wins, but the smarter one. Even so, the angelic fighting depicted here is something I can't imagine, because I don't see what they could fight with (I mean, the tools they would use), or how one angel could hold another back. Holding back implies a physical limitation.
So, this is really speculative, but I can't help but think that there's something physical even in the spiritual. Not only does the above example concerning angelic fighting make me think this, but other examples in the bible as well. For example, the description of the cherubim in Ezk (10:9-22). Isn't it strange that the cherubim's spirits reside in the wheels beside them, and that these are separate from their bodies, but that the 2 go together, always moving with each other? It reminds me of human bodies and spirits, how they go together and yet aren't to be confused with each other. But then you have to ask, "Well, why is there a separation?" Of course, this is definitely one of the weirder passages in the bible, but that's all the more reason to pay attention.
Now the next thing I want to talk about doesn't directly address the question, but it's certainly related.
We experience the world through our 5 senses, which I'd like to argue (partly in favor of the UQ), is actually 4 senses, since taste and smell are basically the same thing. I've noticed that not all physical manifestations of the spiritual are manifested through all 4 senses. For example, beauty is seen and heard (music), but we don't feel, taste or touch beauty. Things might feel, taste or smell good, but that's different from capturing the essence of beauty. It's interesting, however, that the converse, ugliness, is only seen, not heard, since while things may be cacophonous, they're not ugly. Cacophony is just irritating, while ugliness is pure repulsion (note: I'm only describing ugliness, not giving a definition).
Another example to look at is truth. Truth is best exemplified as light, which is visually perceived. We don't think of truth in terms of sound, touch, etc. What, after all, would truth taste like?
Let's take dirtiness. Certainly things look, and smell dirty, but I don't think this could be equally applied to touch and taste. (Well, I guess this is partly because we try not to eat dirty things.) For sure things don't sound dirty (except when we use the word in a metaphorical sense, which I'm not talking about here).
Some concepts can be symbolized by a color -- purity is represented by white; war, courage, blood, passion -- these are symbolized by red. I don't think all colors have an inherent symbolism to them, however. Purple, for example, is often used for royalty, but that's just by happenstance, since the purple dye used since ancient times was too expensive (or even outlawed) for commoners. But this doesn't mean that purple is completely without it's own ability to evoke emotion or sentiment. It's generally considered a sad or cold color, along with blue, which it's next to on the spectrum, just as red, yellow and orange are considered happy, warm colors. I won't go into color as a physical manifestation anymore, since I could probably devote a whole section to this topic and I want to keep things orderly here.
But since I'm on the topic already, I'll mention the symbolism of objects. It seems to me that these are more prominent in more traditional or folkloric stories. Certain objects just seem to have a mystical quality about them. A book, especially I nice, big, fat, dusty book, is quite magical. It obviously signifies deep knowledge, often of a serendipitous kind. If you were to replace all the tomes seen in movies with e-readers, it just wouldn't be the same. Sure, they do the same thing, but, it just doesn't cut it. So, too, with the liturgy. Imagine if the priest, during the readings, held up his smartphone (to reverence it), and said, "The gospel of the Lord!" Yes, it's definitely the gospel of the Lord, but it doesn't feel like it.
Other objects loaded with meaning are keys, doors, mirrors, stairs and pathways, jewels, boxes (the more ornate the better) and I could go on. I once made a list of these, but I'm not sure if I still have it. Well, I'll try to see if I can dig it up and include it here (if I can remember to get around to it). But I think you get the point. If not, I can tell you objects that aren't loaded with meaning -- blankets, toilets, buckets, chairs, most foods (I think we can make an exception for the apple), plates, and most anything electronic or "modern" (like billboards and bus stops).
Which leads me onto a somewhat tangential, though related topic -- how the modern world seems so ugly. This isn't a blanket statement -- some cityscapes and architecture are really stunning -- but given that so much of the modern world is man-made, artificial, mechanical and clashes with its natural surroundings, I really think that quite a lot of it is an eyesore. A parking lot is just about one of the ugliest things on earth. So too, a picket fence made out of wood is so much easier on the eyes than a chain link fence -- especially if it's adorned with barbed wire on the top. Even if the paint is peeling, it still looks better than the chain link. I actually have this topic posted under Beauty in the Philosophy section, so I won't go into this anymore, but it is related to this question, so I thought it appropriate to go into it a little.
What about what I'll call "philosophical synesthesia"? I know most of us aren't synesthetes, but we all are in the philosophical sense. After all, we might describe the smell of a rose as "soft", but the smell of horse radish as "sharp". Pastel colors are soft. It's interesting, though, that I don't think you can say that certain colors are sharp -- maybe intense, or even jumpy if it's neon, and even jarring if you have 2 colors beside each other that are each other's complementary, but not sharp. A song be might described as grating, if you hate it, or soothing, even though the original purpose of these terms was to describe physical (touch) sensations. Some songs even evoke a certain scene in my mind, not just an emotion, but maybe that's just because I'm strongly visual. Words, too, can either sound like what they mean or not. Solomon Shereshevsky, the famous mnemonist, once complained that the Russian word for "pig" - svinya, was far too beautiful for it, and I readily agree. (Shereshevsky had his own problems with memory, synesthesia, and word association, which I won't go into here, but you can read about a fascinating account here.) We could probably come up with an endless list of examples, but I think you get the point.
What's up with these physical prayers? (Naaman -- II Kgs 5:14, Hur -- Ex 17:9-12) and then musical prayers? (I Sm 16:23, II Kgs 3:15)
Jn 5:3-4, 7 (3-4 in ESV note 5) If it's God's will that they be healed (and anything that happens is in God's will) then why doesn't he just hear their prayers and heal them? Why must they go through a physical ritual?
What does it matter that he do the signs with a staff? (Ex 4:17, 20)
Why would God use a log to make the water sweet? Couldn’t he just have Moses say “Be sweet” and it would be sweet without any intervening agent? (Ex 15:25)
Why should their victory depend on holding out a javelin? Is this some kind of magical spell? I don't see how a physical act (holding out the javelin) should have the spiritual depending on it for success. (Jos 8:26) See also Ex 17:8-13 Shouldn't their victory depend on God and not on whether the staff is held in a certain position or not?
Another example is when Jesus healed a blind man by mixing his own spit with some dirt to make a salve for the man's eyes. (Jn 9:6-7) There's at least one other time when Jesus healed a blind person by just healing them (Mk 10:51-52 [Bartimaeus]), so what's up with the salve? And it's pretty gross too.
Well, this is a really difficult question. I guess I'll take this in the direction of looking at the same thing from a fictional point of view. We know that in fairy tales, sci fi, etc, characters often use magic wands, staffs and other objects to affect a change. Many times they'll at least use a formula (words) to do so (much as God did when he made the world, though I find it hard to see how his "words" could be words in a human sense [ie, physically spoken]). You could make the argument that in these fictional worlds, the magical object in question really does possess magical powers, and is therefore necessary, and that this is not the case with God (which is true). However, this would be taking these fictional stories too seriously. What's really important is why we (humans) find it necessary to include these magical objects in our stories when we could very well make up a story without them, just as God can do without physical prayers/rituals, etc to enact what he wills.
You could say that it's because we as physical beings living in a physical world appreciate physical magic. Sure, but that's kind of just asking the same question (after all, we wouldn't make up stories like this if we didn't like it that way), and so it all goes back to the ultimate question -- why are we physical?
You can take another stab and say it's because it makes the story more interesting, which I think is true (I mean, the whole story of the search for the holy grail revolves around this very point), and I think this is a more promising tack to take. (Btw, this harkens back to a point I made in the previous question, in which certain objects are more meaningful, and therefore, more magical, than others. Going after the holy grail is worth an adventure -- going after the holy plate [used to hold the body of Christ at the Last Supper], isn't as motivating.)
Just as in the story of the holy grail, in which there wouldn't be much of a story without it, so too in our physical world I can't imagine how there'd be much of anything without some physical thing. Now God and the angels don't live in the physical world, though I'm sure they "spend plenty of time" (of course there's no time in eternity) managing it, and so even imagining how they preoccupy themselves is, well, impossible, actually. What I mean is, if you were to strip everything away, what would there be left to do? Does the number 4 exist if there's nothing four of that you can count? Even the physical struggle to survive -- if we didn't have to eat, we wouldn't have to work, and then what? Would we all just lay around doing nothing? I know it makes humans seem so lazy, but I really do think that the struggle to feed ourselves is the prime motivating factor for everything, when you get to the bottom of it. It makes you wonder about the deeper significance of communion -- not that it's already deeply significant, but looking at it philosophically, communion is the highest of the sacraments, and yet, or perhaps because it's the most basic thing you can do - eat, you have to ask yourself why do we have to eat, and why is the holiest thing we can do is to eat (Jesus, which is terribly humbling, but still, you're just eating). And so we come back to the holy grail, whose chief significance is that it was used as the cup to partake in this holiest of (physical) meals, but that now lives on in the imagination as a magical (physical) object.
I'm thinking about the connection between meaning and magic, magic as ritual, and it made me think of marriage and weddings. Most cultures of the world have weddings, but not all. I know the Yanomama of the Amazon and the people of Bhutan don't have weddings; that doesn't mean they don't get married, they just don't have weddings. That probably sounds good to men all over the world, but for the women of the world who come from cultures that do have weddings, that has to be a real downer. It was certainly surprising to me to find out that some people in the world just start living together and that in itself constitutes getting married -- I couldn't help but feel like they don't prize marriage very much. I mean, it's the most important day of your life, and there's no ritual, not even a celebration? Well, I guess it's the way Adam and Eve got married -- maybe I shouldn't be that bummed out.
To a certain extent, these cultures are right -- you don't need a ritual (a wedding) to get married. If the couple agrees that they're married, and this is publicly known, then they're married. In this sense, marriage is quite abstract. And it really shouldn't detract from the reality or importance of it. But most people of the world have agreed that this just doesn't feel right -- if it's really that important, we have to manifest this physically (with a ritual and celebration), which in some cultures, especially among the rich, can get really elaborate. And actually, this point-of-view has its point too. I once read an article that said that the more intentional a couple is about getting married, the less likely they are to get a divorce (of course, we're talking about generalities here). So if you elope just wearing your normal clothes, no honeymoon or guests or anything, you're more likely to divorce (statistically) than if you put some effort into planning the wedding and trying to make it special. That's not to say that the more you blow on your wedding the less likely you are to divorce -- the point is being intentional about it. So though weddings are unnecessary, we humans think they're important, because we think marriage is important. And the more important something is, the more you're going to want to physically manifest it.
Going back to marriage, some people (especially nowadays) like to argue that marriage is just a piece of paper. Really? Is a boyfriend (even a "permanent" boyfriend) on the same footing as a husband? The question itself sounds ridiculous, because the answer is "obviously not". Even if you have a permanent, exclusive relationship, that doesn't equate marriage. If you really love someone, you'll want to manifest that love through getting married, or at least (and this is certainly true of men) you'll be so afraid of losing the woman that you'll get married just to make sure she sticks around. Sure, it's a negative, not a positive reason, but it's definitely different from cohabitating, in which the bottom-line, unwritten, unsaid agreement is an at-will relationship.
Marriage is ultimately manifested in the sexual act. Which is ultimately manifested in children. So we see that the more important something is, the more special, the more we want to manifest that thing and "make it real". Not that it's not already real, but I suppose that's why (at least in English), when we say "in real life", what we really mean is "physically", as if if it's not physical, it's not real. I think there's quite a lot of truth to this. Obviously, as a Christian and a dualist, I believe in both the physical and the spiritual, but I want to say that the physical is so important (though it comes after the spiritual [see the UQ page for why I say this]) that if something were to lack this component (as if this were even possible -- even God has become physical for our sakes), then could we say it even exists?
Why didn’t God just point out the chosen king, rather than making everyone join in a “straw-drawing”? (I Sm 10:20-22) Now it really looks bad (that is, completely unnecessary), since God even told them that Saul was hiding among the baggage. (I Sm 10:22)
Now let's think about this drawing of straws. You know, actually a lot of things in life are like this, and there's many other examples of this question in the bible. Actually, if you really stretch it, the whole of life is like this, since, after all, God could do everything for us, right? But no, he let's us live our own lives, really live them.
So let's go over some other biblical examples, just a few that I can come up with off the top of my head. There's the example of the 11 tribes (at the end of Jdgs) that go to war with Benjamin, and though God said he would give the victory to the 11 tribes, they first suffer bad losses to the Benjaminites, and you have to wonder "What was that all about?"
An example from daily life is praying for the sick. If God wanted sick people to get better, why'd he afflict them in the first place? The last 2 examples are also examples of the problem evil; the example this question opens with is morally neutral, and therefore, more perplexing. With the problem of evil, you can say that the parties involved are being punished, being refined (this is a biblical term meaning that the person is undergoing suffering and temptation in order to be made a better person), etc. I cover and classify all the reasons I can think of on the Pain and Suffering page (you may want to check out its subpages as well).
So going back to our morally-neutral example, the reason this makes it more perplexing is because whereas the answer is pushed a level back with the moral examples, in this case, we can't do that. Unless we can. In which case, we'd have to say that nothing is morally neutral, something that I'm ready to agree with, but not quite.
In Saul's case, we could say that the straw-drawing served to set up the situation such that it was plain to all how reluctant the young man was to take up the crown, which, I have to admit, is something that's never been obvious to me. We know that Saul turned out to be an evil king, rejected by God, and that he ended his life in such desperation that he killed himself in the middle of a battle he was destined to lose. However, fitting the story of how he came to be anointed king, and the fact that he was reluctant, doesn't really seem to have any bearing on the rest of the story. If anything, it makes Saul look humble.
In any case, continuing on with more biblical examples, another of the more startling examples is the story of the beating of the arrows (II Kgs 13:14-19, 25). So what was the point of letting the king know that he royally screwed up? Just to make him feel bad and neurotic for the rest of his life? And if he didn't feel bad and neurotic about it, then what was the point? Just for his information? I doubt it. Seems to me that we can actually say he was lucky -- to find out how he screwed up. At least he was getting feedback. I don't think we (as humans) get much of such direct feedback, and it'd certainly be nice if we did. But I guess now we're veering into a faith question, though I go into this a little with the problem of evil (see the Pain and Suffering page, under the God interfering with free will question, though taken from a different tack; and also the Faith page [the Lazarus question {note: I don't actually mention Lazarus in the question}]).
Why is death so horrible if there's an afterlife? What does this say about being human and physical?
We can start by saying perhaps the most obvious thing to note about this question -- that God created us to be physical, and if we're not in a physical state, that's actually, in some way, a violation of his will. Therefore, it's unnatural, creepy. Let's forget about why we're physical for now -- that's the ultimate question after all, and something I don't think we'll ever figure out down here below. Instead, though that would be the most direct route to an answer, we're going to have to leave that end hanging and try to work from the other end.
The experience of being around a dead body is certainly one-of-a-kind, especially if you knew what this person looked like and were like when they were alive. The idea of decaying is also disturbing. It's a dirty, unclean feeling. I think that's a strange term to use -- unclean -- since that's more of a biblical term than a word we use in common English, but it's the right word. Also, that this person had a soul and was animated, and now are disintegrating like any other physical thing, is hard to stomach. An inanimate object that was never alive is fine -- knowing that it used to be alive is the weird part.
Although I can't find the reference now, try as I might, (I think it was C.S. Lewis who said this, though I could be wrong), he observed that if you were to be alone in a room with a dead body, it would produce in you a weird feeling, and I think he had a special word for this, but I can't remember it. Anyway, I think you can picture this scenario and know what I mean.
St. Paul says, "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." (I Thes 4:13-14) Now it's true that we don't have to mourn as others do, but only for those that we're confident died in the Lord. As for those whom we doubt died in the Lord, that they're in hell is separate from that they're dead. Even for people we might regard as saints, they're death is still heartbreaking, though it is a comfort that we know that they've gone to go to a better place. Few of us want to die, unless life has gotten unbearable. Even then, we don't really want to die -- we've merely gotten desperate. But if we know that we'll go to a better place, why do we all have a desire to keep on living?
Hmm. I've tried my best to go at it from the other end, but I don't think it's working.
Why would Jesus cry over Lazarus having died if he knew that he would raise him from the dead soon? (Jn 11:35)
I'm thinking about the connection between meaning and magic, magic as ritual, and it made me think of marriage and weddings. Most cultures of the world have weddings, but not all. I know the Yanomama of the Amazon and the people of Bhutan don't have weddings; that doesn't mean they don't get married, they just don't have weddings. That probably sounds good to men all over the world, but for the women of the world who come from cultures that do have weddings, that has to be a real downer. It was certainly surprising to me to find out that some people in the world just start living together and that in itself constitutes getting married -- I couldn't help but feel like they don't prize marriage very much. I mean, it's the most important day of your life, and there's no ritual, not even a celebration? Well, I guess it's the way Adam and Eve got married -- maybe I shouldn't be that bummed out.
To a certain extent, these cultures are right -- you don't need a ritual (a wedding) to get married. If the couple agrees that they're married, and this is publicly known, then they're married. In this sense, marriage is quite abstract. And it really shouldn't detract from the reality or importance of it. But most people of the world have agreed that this just doesn't feel right -- if it's really that important, we have to manifest this physically (with a ritual and celebration), which in some cultures, especially among the rich, can get really elaborate. And actually, this point-of-view has its point too. I once read an article that said that the more intentional a couple is about getting married, the less likely they are to get a divorce (of course, we're talking about generalities here). So if you elope just wearing your normal clothes, no honeymoon or guests or anything, you're more likely to divorce (statistically) than if you put some effort into planning the wedding and trying to make it special. That's not to say that the more you blow on your wedding the less likely you are to divorce -- the point is being intentional about it. So though weddings are unnecessary, we humans think they're important, because we think marriage is important. And the more important something is, the more you're going to want to physically manifest it.
Going back to marriage, some people (especially nowadays) like to argue that marriage is just a piece of paper. Really? Is a boyfriend (even a "permanent" boyfriend) on the same footing as a husband? The question itself sounds ridiculous, because the answer is "obviously not". Even if you have a permanent, exclusive relationship, that doesn't equate marriage. If you really love someone, you'll want to manifest that love through getting married, or at least (and this is certainly true of men) you'll be so afraid of losing the woman that you'll get married just to make sure she sticks around. Sure, it's a negative, not a positive reason, but it's definitely different from cohabitating, in which the bottom-line, unwritten, unsaid agreement is an at-will relationship.
Marriage is ultimately manifested in the sexual act. Which is ultimately manifested in children. So we see that the more important something is, the more special, the more we want to manifest that thing and "make it real". Not that it's not already real, but I suppose that's why (at least in English), when we say "in real life", what we really mean is "physically", as if if it's not physical, it's not real. I think there's quite a lot of truth to this. Obviously, as a Christian and a dualist, I believe in both the physical and the spiritual, but I want to say that the physical is so important (though it comes after the spiritual [see the UQ page for why I say this]) that if something were to lack this component (as if this were even possible -- even God has become physical for our sakes), then could we say it even exists?
Why didn’t God just point out the chosen king, rather than making everyone join in a “straw-drawing”? (I Sm 10:20-22) Now it really looks bad (that is, completely unnecessary), since God even told them that Saul was hiding among the baggage. (I Sm 10:22)
Now let's think about this drawing of straws. You know, actually a lot of things in life are like this, and there's many other examples of this question in the bible. Actually, if you really stretch it, the whole of life is like this, since, after all, God could do everything for us, right? But no, he let's us live our own lives, really live them.
So let's go over some other biblical examples, just a few that I can come up with off the top of my head. There's the example of the 11 tribes (at the end of Jdgs) that go to war with Benjamin, and though God said he would give the victory to the 11 tribes, they first suffer bad losses to the Benjaminites, and you have to wonder "What was that all about?"
An example from daily life is praying for the sick. If God wanted sick people to get better, why'd he afflict them in the first place? The last 2 examples are also examples of the problem evil; the example this question opens with is morally neutral, and therefore, more perplexing. With the problem of evil, you can say that the parties involved are being punished, being refined (this is a biblical term meaning that the person is undergoing suffering and temptation in order to be made a better person), etc. I cover and classify all the reasons I can think of on the Pain and Suffering page (you may want to check out its subpages as well).
So going back to our morally-neutral example, the reason this makes it more perplexing is because whereas the answer is pushed a level back with the moral examples, in this case, we can't do that. Unless we can. In which case, we'd have to say that nothing is morally neutral, something that I'm ready to agree with, but not quite.
In Saul's case, we could say that the straw-drawing served to set up the situation such that it was plain to all how reluctant the young man was to take up the crown, which, I have to admit, is something that's never been obvious to me. We know that Saul turned out to be an evil king, rejected by God, and that he ended his life in such desperation that he killed himself in the middle of a battle he was destined to lose. However, fitting the story of how he came to be anointed king, and the fact that he was reluctant, doesn't really seem to have any bearing on the rest of the story. If anything, it makes Saul look humble.
In any case, continuing on with more biblical examples, another of the more startling examples is the story of the beating of the arrows (II Kgs 13:14-19, 25). So what was the point of letting the king know that he royally screwed up? Just to make him feel bad and neurotic for the rest of his life? And if he didn't feel bad and neurotic about it, then what was the point? Just for his information? I doubt it. Seems to me that we can actually say he was lucky -- to find out how he screwed up. At least he was getting feedback. I don't think we (as humans) get much of such direct feedback, and it'd certainly be nice if we did. But I guess now we're veering into a faith question, though I go into this a little with the problem of evil (see the Pain and Suffering page, under the God interfering with free will question, though taken from a different tack; and also the Faith page [the Lazarus question {note: I don't actually mention Lazarus in the question}]).
Why is death so horrible if there's an afterlife? What does this say about being human and physical?
We can start by saying perhaps the most obvious thing to note about this question -- that God created us to be physical, and if we're not in a physical state, that's actually, in some way, a violation of his will. Therefore, it's unnatural, creepy. Let's forget about why we're physical for now -- that's the ultimate question after all, and something I don't think we'll ever figure out down here below. Instead, though that would be the most direct route to an answer, we're going to have to leave that end hanging and try to work from the other end.
The experience of being around a dead body is certainly one-of-a-kind, especially if you knew what this person looked like and were like when they were alive. The idea of decaying is also disturbing. It's a dirty, unclean feeling. I think that's a strange term to use -- unclean -- since that's more of a biblical term than a word we use in common English, but it's the right word. Also, that this person had a soul and was animated, and now are disintegrating like any other physical thing, is hard to stomach. An inanimate object that was never alive is fine -- knowing that it used to be alive is the weird part.
Although I can't find the reference now, try as I might, (I think it was C.S. Lewis who said this, though I could be wrong), he observed that if you were to be alone in a room with a dead body, it would produce in you a weird feeling, and I think he had a special word for this, but I can't remember it. Anyway, I think you can picture this scenario and know what I mean.
St. Paul says, "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." (I Thes 4:13-14) Now it's true that we don't have to mourn as others do, but only for those that we're confident died in the Lord. As for those whom we doubt died in the Lord, that they're in hell is separate from that they're dead. Even for people we might regard as saints, they're death is still heartbreaking, though it is a comfort that we know that they've gone to go to a better place. Few of us want to die, unless life has gotten unbearable. Even then, we don't really want to die -- we've merely gotten desperate. But if we know that we'll go to a better place, why do we all have a desire to keep on living?
Hmm. I've tried my best to go at it from the other end, but I don't think it's working.
Why would Jesus cry over Lazarus having died if he knew that he would raise him from the dead soon? (Jn 11:35)
How could Enoch and Elijah be taken, while they were still physical? Where would they go? To heaven, but heaven's not physical, so how could they go there? Likewise, Jesus and Mary. So these four, where exactly are they?
How did God dwell in the tabernacle? He's everywhere, so how could he be between the cherubim in particular?
Sounds to me like this is the same sort of presence God manifested when he was in the burning bush. Also, the smoke that filled the tabernacle and the temple. So we've got fire and smoke. That seems right, but why? I mean, God could have manifested himself in rain, or even a rock. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came in a wind (and fire), and at Jesus' baptism, in the form of a dove, whatever that means. God even appeared as a human in Genesis (to Abraham, who received him as a visitor, and even cooked a meal for him), and again in the book of Daniel, in the fiery furnace. In the book of Kings, Elijah witnessed a great wind, a great fire, and a great earthquake, but the bible says that God was not in any of them. And then we have the blessed sacrament, which is in a category all to itself, a real presence unlike any of the above (except for perhaps when God appeared as a human in the Old Testament, but what that even means, I have no idea) -- was he really physical, or just appeared such? With the Daniel reference, we can say that he was a vision, but he ate with Abraham, just as Jesus proved his physicality to his disciples after his resurrection by eating a piece of fish, or is the Genesis example like the one in Tobit, in which Raphael says he just "seemed" physical? Oh yes, and then there was the time that God showed his glory (and his back) to Moses, but not his face (since no man could see his face and live). And yet, in Genesis and Daniel, I presume that they did see his face. And everyone saw Jesus' face, though he's God. So many questions here, and I don't have the wisdom to figure any of this out.
Another question of location -- God is everywhere and at all times knew the Israelites' sin, so why did he have to separate himself from them because he wouldn't be able to hold in his anger otherwise? Besides that, what does his anger have to do with his distance from them? What I'm saying is that this is very human of him! (Ex 33:2-3) This is related to the opening question above (about the Ark of Covenant). In fact, I'd say it's really just the same question in a different form.
How did the Spirit of God descend like a dove on Jesus and rest on him? (Mt 3:16) What does it mean “bodily form”? (Lk 3:22)
If it is the spirit and not the flesh that matters, why communion? (Jn 6:63, 55, 52, 60-61)
Well, apparently, the flesh does matter! But seriously, this is yet one more example of the importance of the UQ, and shows forth the importance of the UQ to Christianity.
As for the flesh not mattering, I'm sure there's many who take communion and it does them no good, even daily mass goers, which is really horrifying. I shudder at the thought. It's very perplexing, but then, even Jesus marveled at the crowd's unbelief. (Mk 6:6)
Why have outward signs for covenants? (ESV Study Bible note for Gn 9:12-17; rainbow, circumcision, communion)
I can only say that God must really like the physical.
And what does this say about the nature of the mind and spirit, and God’s relation to both? (I Cor 14:2, 15, 17)
Ah, a very good example. So in this instance, the mind is physical and the spirit is spiritual. Even if we think of the mind as immaterial, next to the spirit, it's spiritual. (I'm talking in terms of the UQ.) (Actually, I believe I cover this in more detail in one of my notebooks, so I'll leave off on this until I get to typing that one up.)
How come Jesus always told those he healed not to tell anybody? (ex: Mt 8:4) I suppose it was to keep the crowds away, so he wouldn't be swamped, but these people never kept their mouth shut, and Jesus would have known that would happen, so why did he bother wasting his breath?
This is kind of like the above question about Saul hiding out during the drawing of straws, except it's the opposite -- instead of God setting up a scenario that appears to be a waste (therefore the humans involved end up wasting their efforts), in this case, God himself is the one who's wasting (his breath). And the only reason I can think of for why he would do so anyway, is to show that these people were so excited that they couldn't keep their mouths shut. But who in their right mind could? Can it really be said that these people disobeyed the Lord? Even Mary pushed Jesus into performing his first miracle.
Ezk 3:22 Why did God tell Ezekiel to meet him in a certain place?
What further makes this ironic is that he tells him to go into the valley just to tell him to shut himself up in his house. (v 24)
What does it mean that "power had gone out from him"? Why should faith (spiritual) cause what appears to be a physical sensation? (Mk 5:30) Unless this was a spiritual sensation, but it doesn't sound like it.
How did God dwell in the tabernacle? He's everywhere, so how could he be between the cherubim in particular?
Sounds to me like this is the same sort of presence God manifested when he was in the burning bush. Also, the smoke that filled the tabernacle and the temple. So we've got fire and smoke. That seems right, but why? I mean, God could have manifested himself in rain, or even a rock. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came in a wind (and fire), and at Jesus' baptism, in the form of a dove, whatever that means. God even appeared as a human in Genesis (to Abraham, who received him as a visitor, and even cooked a meal for him), and again in the book of Daniel, in the fiery furnace. In the book of Kings, Elijah witnessed a great wind, a great fire, and a great earthquake, but the bible says that God was not in any of them. And then we have the blessed sacrament, which is in a category all to itself, a real presence unlike any of the above (except for perhaps when God appeared as a human in the Old Testament, but what that even means, I have no idea) -- was he really physical, or just appeared such? With the Daniel reference, we can say that he was a vision, but he ate with Abraham, just as Jesus proved his physicality to his disciples after his resurrection by eating a piece of fish, or is the Genesis example like the one in Tobit, in which Raphael says he just "seemed" physical? Oh yes, and then there was the time that God showed his glory (and his back) to Moses, but not his face (since no man could see his face and live). And yet, in Genesis and Daniel, I presume that they did see his face. And everyone saw Jesus' face, though he's God. So many questions here, and I don't have the wisdom to figure any of this out.
Another question of location -- God is everywhere and at all times knew the Israelites' sin, so why did he have to separate himself from them because he wouldn't be able to hold in his anger otherwise? Besides that, what does his anger have to do with his distance from them? What I'm saying is that this is very human of him! (Ex 33:2-3) This is related to the opening question above (about the Ark of Covenant). In fact, I'd say it's really just the same question in a different form.
How did the Spirit of God descend like a dove on Jesus and rest on him? (Mt 3:16) What does it mean “bodily form”? (Lk 3:22)
If it is the spirit and not the flesh that matters, why communion? (Jn 6:63, 55, 52, 60-61)
Well, apparently, the flesh does matter! But seriously, this is yet one more example of the importance of the UQ, and shows forth the importance of the UQ to Christianity.
As for the flesh not mattering, I'm sure there's many who take communion and it does them no good, even daily mass goers, which is really horrifying. I shudder at the thought. It's very perplexing, but then, even Jesus marveled at the crowd's unbelief. (Mk 6:6)
Why have outward signs for covenants? (ESV Study Bible note for Gn 9:12-17; rainbow, circumcision, communion)
I can only say that God must really like the physical.
And what does this say about the nature of the mind and spirit, and God’s relation to both? (I Cor 14:2, 15, 17)
Ah, a very good example. So in this instance, the mind is physical and the spirit is spiritual. Even if we think of the mind as immaterial, next to the spirit, it's spiritual. (I'm talking in terms of the UQ.) (Actually, I believe I cover this in more detail in one of my notebooks, so I'll leave off on this until I get to typing that one up.)
How come Jesus always told those he healed not to tell anybody? (ex: Mt 8:4) I suppose it was to keep the crowds away, so he wouldn't be swamped, but these people never kept their mouth shut, and Jesus would have known that would happen, so why did he bother wasting his breath?
This is kind of like the above question about Saul hiding out during the drawing of straws, except it's the opposite -- instead of God setting up a scenario that appears to be a waste (therefore the humans involved end up wasting their efforts), in this case, God himself is the one who's wasting (his breath). And the only reason I can think of for why he would do so anyway, is to show that these people were so excited that they couldn't keep their mouths shut. But who in their right mind could? Can it really be said that these people disobeyed the Lord? Even Mary pushed Jesus into performing his first miracle.
Ezk 3:22 Why did God tell Ezekiel to meet him in a certain place?
What further makes this ironic is that he tells him to go into the valley just to tell him to shut himself up in his house. (v 24)
What does it mean that "power had gone out from him"? Why should faith (spiritual) cause what appears to be a physical sensation? (Mk 5:30) Unless this was a spiritual sensation, but it doesn't sound like it.