AR-talk Digest: 6 Jun 2004, Issue 1256

> The Mind
> Reference: Two articles by James Chancellor on The Family/COG
> Charismatics in Pasadena

From: "Ron Henzel" <>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:52:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] REQ: The Mind

Jeff writes:
> I was asked the following:
> What would be the easiest way to access the following topic?
> The Origin of Mind

It depends what is meant by "origin." Does it refer to the question of when, or at what stage of biological complexity, the mind emerged if one assumes an evolutionary framework? If so, then one would need to refer to the literature of evolutionary biology. (If one assumes a creationist framework, the question, at least with respect to human beings, is answered in Genesis 1-2.)

The only other way I'm able to understand the phrase is as a reference to the question of the mind's source, which has been almost exclusively the domain of philosophy where it's inextricably entangled with the question of the mind's inherent nature and its relationship to the body (specifically, the brain). Any standard text designed to introduce readers to the most basic questions in philosophy would be a good place to start, especially if it has a section covering the vexing "mind-body problem" (cf. the entry in C. Stephen Evans, *Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion*, (IVP, 2002), 75-76).

I'm more than a little hamstrung right now, since out of the 75 or so boxes of books I moved with me down here to Florida about 20 or so are still in storage until I can build more bookcases. That's probably why I can't lay my hands on the introduction to philosophy that Norman Geisler co-authored some time ago to see if it has a good section on this. I'd be surprised if it didn't, but it would be nice if someone else could confirm that it does.

One of the more extensive and readable treatments I'm familiar with was written by UCLA's JohnHospers in his *An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis*, 2nd edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), 378-424.

Ron Henzel
Senior Researcher
Midwest Christian Outreach
"What if the Hokey-Pokey really *is* what it's all about?" -- Author unknown.

Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:51:57 +1200
From: Keith Wilson <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] REQ: The Mind

Hi Jeff,
Try Richard Swinburne's The Evolution of the Soul Although a theistic evolutionist, he argues that the mind or soul cannot arise from biological evolution. Also, JP Moreland specializes in this area and has written a number of works on it in both books and journals. Can't think of the titles at the moment,

In Christ
Keith Wilson


Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 04:22:27 -0700
From: "Carl Mosser" <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] REQ: The Mind writes:
>What would be the easiest way to access the following topic?
> The Origin of Mind

I seem to have missed the original post on this, so I am not sure if there was more context to the question. Philosophy of mind is, of course, a massive field. Here are just a few recommendations from my bookshelf:

Paul S. MacDonald, _History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations about Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume_ (Ashgate, 2003). It is just what the title says.

Kevin Corcoran, ed., _Soul, Body and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons_ (Cornell University Press, 2001). This book contains essays by a number of leading thinkers in the area. A large proportion of the essays focus on dualism, something rather unusual in the current climate. The majority (though by no means all) of the contributors are also Christians. The essays by John Cooper and Stephen Davis address biblical materials--Cooper's being something of a precis of his book.

John W. Cooper, _Body, Soul & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate_ (updated ed.; Eerdmans, 2000). This is the most important book addressing the biblical data. Cooper argues that the Bible supports dualism.

Ric Machuga, _In Defense of the Soul: What it Means to Be Human_ (Brazos, 2002). An easy to read and engaging defense of dualism from an Aristotelian/Thomistic perspective. Even if one does not agree with the overall perspective, the book contains many good arguments presented in an accessible way.

William Hasker, _The Emergent Self_ (Cornell University Press, 1999). An important argument against physicalism in favor of "emergent dualism." It will be too technical for folks without some background in philosophy, but those who do should probably spend some time with it.

J.P. Moreland & Scott B. Rae, _Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics_ (IVP, 2000). An excellent critique of physicalism and defense of a modified "Thomistic dualism." Some parts will be heavy going for those who do not have some philosophical background, but most should be able to get the gist of things if they are patient to read some sections a couple of times. Unique among books in this area for the way that it examines how one's view of human persons affects a host of hot-topic ethical issues. Both halves of the book are well-worth its price. Highly recommended.

J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig address mind-body issues in their _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_ (IVP). This is an important resource for Christian apologists to own.

Carl Mosser
St. Mary's College
University of St. Andrews
St. Andrews, KY16 9JU
Scotland, United Kingdom
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:31:20 -0400
From: Jeff Downs <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] REQ: The Mind

Carl Mosser wrote:
> I seem to have missed the original post on this, so I am
> not sure if there was more context to the question.
> Philosophy of mind is, of course, a massive field.

Thanks Carl, Keith and Ron. The request actually came from Ron Nash. Not exactly surewhat he was looking for myself. This is not a field I've looked into much. I can offera few resources, but with your help I can give a few more. Evan though I'm sure he isaware of them. I don't know if he meant on my site in the Resource Index or what.

In Christ,
Jeff Downs
Resource Index/Blog, <>


Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:25:30 -0400
From: Jeff Downs <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] [REF] Two articles by James Chancellor on The Family/COG

Eric Pement wrote:
> Also (and this will especially interest those who attended
> Chancellor's presentation at the EMNR national conference in
> Louisville in 2002), Jon Trott has a substantial interview with
> Jim Chancellor regarding the current status of The Family, new
> developments, and reflections on the anticult and evangelical
> countercult movement. Jon's introduction at the top of the
> interview is also worth reading, especially the second paragraph.

Thanks for sharing this. After skimming over the interview there are a few questions I have, but don't necessarily need to be asked. What does concern me about Jon is the following question raised: Many of us feel the so-called "CounterCult" -- traditional evangelical ministries targeting groups such as the COG with highly confrontational methods -- has failed. What are your thoughts?

I would like to know who the "many" are and would also like to know who the other groups "such as" would be. Of course the word "targeting" was intentionally used and I wonder if Jon has a negative connotation when he does use it in referring to the "traditional evangelical ministries" and their "highly confrontation methods." I would certainly be interested in what comprises the "highly confrontational methods."

Is Jon referring to the KJV only advocates who stand out on Temple Square and yell at the LDS (who I'm sure no one here knows who they are), or is he referring to Walter Martin, Mormonism Research Ministry, Christian Answers for the New Age, Centers for Apologetics Research, New England Institute of Religious Research, etc... (see <>)? Jon is making the assumption (and maybe rightly so) that the purpose of the "methods" is to win converts, because the methods are used when confronting a targeted group. I'm assuming Jon is referring to particular encounters one has with a member of a new religious movement, not with literature produced by the counter-cult community (see above)?

I would like to know if Jon thinks that when one proclaims the gospel and does not see that person come to Christ (ever), would it constitute a failure?

Chancellor gives the following response to Jon's question:
I understand that a good bit of self-reflection is now occurring within the Christian Counter-cult community. I think in many cases that the efforts have not so much failed. The groups were "targeted and I think the thrust of the effort was to attack them, discredit them, and to throw up defensive walls around the church.... I believe it is difficult to find many instances where "attack evangelism has been successful.

I liked the answer given, but than I read it again and I don't think "attack" is an appropriate word. I would like to know Chancellor's understanding of "attack evangelism" and what or who it includes. Regarding the Children of God, that is an issue I can not speak to at all -meaning the group itself or any responses (either written or played out) given by the Counter-cult community. It is something I've never looked into. But, of course Jon does not limit responses to this particular group when he states "targeting groups such as..."

Oh well, at this point in my life I've taken the advice of others and have left this discussion out, until this e-mail of course. But, perhaps it will be the topic of conversation at the next EMNR conference again. If not, that would be fine with me.

In Christ,
Jeff Downs
Resource Index/Blog, <>

From: "Stan Slonkosky" <>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:42:10 -0700
Subject: Charismatic Wackos in Pasadena

Now that part of the Worlswide Church of God campus in Pasadena has been sold, one of the new owners, Harvest Rock Church, has scheduled "3 Nights of Glory," followed by a Day of Dedication on July 4. If you got to (be sure disable any pop-up blocker you have runnint) and you will see that the speakers are:

Benny Hinn
Dr. Jack Hayford
Cindy Jacobs
Dr. Paul Cedar
Dr. Che Ahn

I haven't heard of all of these people, but the ones I have heard of, I would describe as charismatic wackos. Googling the web site revealscriticism of Benny Hinn and some other charismatics, but not of Hayford and Ahn, both of whom have done some things with the WCG in the past. Maybe they're not as wacko as Hinn, but I think they are unwise in appearing on the same stage with Benny Hinn.

Stan Slonkosky

You have been reading the AR-talk digest <>

back to top

return to AR-talk sample selection page