Juan: Thanks again Patch, and thanks to the other people who offered commentary on thetopic.
Sorry to take so long to get respond to your last message. Earlier this week I started writing out a follow-up and realized that the context of my thinking was becoming more like "logical" argumentation whereas you were asking me more about spirituality.
So I'm starting over with that mind, not avoiding it but keeping it more in my mind as I write, trying to keep my responses relevant to this dialogue rather than go off on my own postulations for its own sake. Right, so I just mentioned logic and spirituality. If you'd ask me what I thought about spirit and spirituality, I guess I'd say that I see the spirit =soul = mind = metaphysical center. We all seem to have this center in common, and probably other living things to some degree. The body then is the physical center. Logic describes the relationship between objects material and immaterial. It divides the sensical from non-sensical.
Patch:I would agree with this last comment on some level. Logic describes our attempts to draw connections between aspects of our reality (ie. Logically, if I am allergic to eggs and I eat an egg, I will be sick.) . However, I would say that logic is often incapable of accurately drawing connections between many aspects of the material and the immaterial (ie. if I cannot accurately see an afterlife in my current physical state, why should I logically worry about consequences to my actions that could have a bearing on an afterlife?).
Juan: I don't subscribe to the neo-Platonist perspective as you decribe it (I admit I don´t know much about it), that the soul is ruler over the body. I think they are both dependent on each other in order to learn and thrive. But I do think that though they are intertwined that those ties can be cut, that they are separable (though there doesn't seem to be much use in them being separated). And I can't explain how the two communicate, but as you say they are different if not distinct in that one is material and the other immaterial.
You mention that Christ is very flesh-oriented. I'd see most religions having a fundamentally mataphysical base that is interpreted to the end of ordering the physical reality. In other words, that they are materially-oriented and perhaps even flesh-oriented. Though Christ may be more flesh-focused--emphasizing the connection to the flesh, which as you say is not easily separable or inseparablefrom the spiritual side we have. Most religions emphasize the important of the flesh, though they may not focus on its connectedness to the spiritual.
Hmm. To what end do you see the teachings of Christ as flesh-oriented? In other words, how do you interpret this orientation to guide how you see or live your life?
Patch: Sure, Juan. Throughout the stories of Jesus' life, I see numerous instances where he describes and exemplifies the Kingdom of Heaven (a period of time here on Earth that is ushered into existence by the arrival of Jesus) in both physical and spiritual ways. Most of his spiritual teachings center on belief (ie. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" John 3:36). However, Jesus also gives us some important teachings as they relate to the physical world. Giving to the needy is an important part of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 6:1-4). You can take a look at Jesus' Beatitudes in Matt. 5 to see how he describes what the Kingdom of Heaven looks like.
Jesus constantly worked towards social change in his time. Mind you, not necessarily major political change (he never does overturn Roman political power in Jerusalem), but I do appreciate instances like the healed leper (Matt. 8:1-4). In this instance, Jesus not only physically heals the leper, but he restores dignity to a man who was likely rejected by each and every single person around him (lepers were considered spiritually unclean in that people believed that they had done something to deserve such a terrible disease) by telling the healed leper to enter the Temple in Jerusalem (traditionally not a place for spiritually unclean people according to Mosaic law).
My point is that Jesus' flesh-oriented teachings taught us that there are certain ways that we should seek to live in the present world. The present world is not something that should be avoided or condemned. I believe that Jesus calls us to live responsibly in this world. The previous stories are just a few examples of what that may mean.
Juan: Your excerpt from Paul: "Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now." Yes, this seems like a perfect example of the dissolution of the individual. And yet to me this idea, "to know as God knows," essentially is equivalent to becoming God, being absorbed by God, dissolving into God. But if that is the case then I don't see how one can, "cognate and act on a different level in Heaven," as you said in your message.
Patch: Sure. Now again, I believe that this is an idea that we cannot fully comprehend in our current state of existence. As much as I can possibly learn about Heaven and have a pretty good idea about it, I will never ultimately understand it. I think that this is more Paul's point in this particular passage; rather than whether or not he is concerned about whether or not we will become God. He brings up the point in this passage because he discusses why God might possibly allow someone to endure suffering in this present life (because we cannot possibly understand all means and ends in the chain of existence). Be sure to notice that Paul does not suggest that we will know as God knows, but as he knows "us" now.
So again, when we pass on to the next step of life through death, our thought and our understanding of existence will be different from what it is now. The most obvious detail of course would be the idea that we will suddenly know that there is an afterlife, right? If there is any indication in Paul's thought that we will cognate differently, it will be the moment when we experience afterlife and suddenly lose all concepts of doubt in an afterlife (which plagues everyone no matter how theologically adept he/she may be).
Unfortunately, in the interests of space and time, I will have to cut off my response here. I'd like to conserve some space in this entry so as to prevent it becoming too long, and on Monday, I will be attending and presenting a eulogy at a family funeral. I will continue my responses to your last e-mail, Juan, on Tuesday or Wednesday. Thanks as always for your questions and ideas.
