Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: to Keebler from Marchionni
Message-ID: <5106@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 15:58:37 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5106
Posted: Thu Mar 14 15:58:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 04:39:44 EST
References: <1646V6M@PSUVM>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <1646V6M@PSUVM> V6M@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>I've been mulling over my postings and I see no great problems with them
>given what Christians use as reasonable arguments and reasonable evidence.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Little or none?

>BTW since the concept of soul is popping up again, the fact that man can
>explain his OBSERVED nature very elegantly and simply with the existence of
>a soul does many things:
>1. the soul if it exists, needs to be supernatural
>2. a soul, being supernatural, cannot have been created by man
>3. a soul must have been created by another supernatural being
>
>The Christian aplogeticist explanation describes man accurately now and in
>the past and seems still to be consistent for future use.  Even as more
>physio-chemical knowledge is known about the brain, the conflict
>between mind and brain and being INTENSIFIES.  Our position is still
>consistent.

The word soul is, I understand, drawn from the Greek word meaning mind.
To say that the 'soul' resolves any conflict between mind and brain is,
therefore, meaningless.  The mind, although still not subject to full
explaination, has no need of being supernatural.  Unless I have
misunderstood what you were saying in the above quote?

-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower