Monday, June 20, 2016

What is the difference between the soul and the spirit? 


The difference between the soul and the spirit is as the difference between the physical and spiritual.

Nearly every religion and society believes that the real man is not the body, but an invisible immortal soul that lives on.  But is this so?  What exactly is man?  What exactly is the soul?  What exactly is spirit?  And what exactly is “the spirit in man” as mentioned in the Bible in Job 32:8?  Is this the immortal soul that lives on?

Men and animals are souls

Let’s start with spirit.  Spirit is invisible, not subject to the physical laws.  God is spirit (John 2:24).  Satan and his demons are spirit.  The righteous angels are also spirit.  Spirit is also immortal.  A spirit being lives forever and cannot die.

Man is physical, formed from the dust of the ground.  He was made in the shape and image of God, but was not made as spirit—but of the dust of the ground, which God caused to become flesh.

The soul is also physical.

Genesis 2:7 states:  “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”  The Hebrew word translated soul here is nephesh. This word is translated elsewhere within the Bible as creature; sometimes referring to animals.  Man and animals have a similar, fleshly existence.

God told Adam and Eve that if they took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would die.  Elsewhere in the Bible it says:  “The soul that sins dies.” (Ezekiel 18:4 and 20.)  If the soul can die then it is not immortal spirit.  The soul is physical. Man is a soul.  Thus the expression: “He’s a jolly old soul.”  Man has the same physical existence as animals.  Man and animals are both souls.  The same source of life that is in animals is in man.  Just as animals die, so does man.  And, the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Difference between the spirit in man and in animals

Of, course there is something different about man that distinguishes him from the animals.  Man has intellect.  Animals have instinct.  Man can think, reason, and philosophize.  Man can appreciate art, has the ability to make choices and decisions; is capable of forming ethical and moral attitudes.  Animals only do what they are “programmed” to do.  Though, they can learn within certain limitations; they work on instinct.  Birds build nests—certain birds build certain kinds of nests.  That is what is programmed into them.  Does one type of bird who sees the nest of another type of bird think: “Oh, how interesting; I think I will build my nest like that also.”?  No.  Animals are unable to reason in the sense that man reasons.

So, what causes this difference in Man and animal?  Science has shown that the brains of man and animal are very similar.  Some animal brains are bigger than man’s brain.  So, is it the brain that makes the difference?  Or is it something else?

In his book The Brain: The Last Frontier, Richard M. Restak, M.D. points out that there is a difference between brain and mind. “The question ‘Is the brain a sufficient explanation for the mind?’ was anticipated by biologist, Sir Julian Huxley: ‘The brain alone is not responsible for mind, even though it is a necessary organ for its manifestation.  Indeed, an isolated brain is a piece of biological nonsense as meaningless as an isolated individual’.”

So, the mind is different from the brain. What is the mind in man?

Job said:  “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding?” (Job 32:8).  So what is this spirit in man?

In his booklet “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind”, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:  “It is the nonphysical component in the human brain that does not exist in the brain of animals.”

It is this “human” spirit that is the mind in man.  It is the brain that thinks, however, it is the spirit that imparts the power to think.  Animal brains, without this spirit, cannot think, except in the most elementary manner.

The difference between spirit and soul

This spirit is not the man.  It is not another person inside the man.  It is not something that makes the man immortal enabling him to go from being to being or from being to animals as some religions think.  It is not an immortal soul that lives forever. Ecclesiastes 12:7 states that this human spirit returns to God upon a man's death.  But, it does not have life.  This human spirit is more of a depository—like a computer disk holding the files on a hard drive after a computer has been destroyed—it holds the memories of the man's character—which God uses later to implant back into the man at the resurrection.

So, from birth, God gives man this “human” spirit.  The spirit gives man the mind power which is not in animals.

This spirit is given to man to aid in God’s plan for mankind.  Unlike animals, man was made in the shape and image of God to have a special relationship with God.  He was made to ultimately be born into the Family of God, which right now is only composed of God the Father and Jesus Christ, but in the future will include all of mankind.

"The real value of a human life, then, lies solely within the human spirit combined with the human brain," Herbert W. Armstrong states in Mystery of the Ages.

He continued: "Man was created to have a relationship with his Maker.  Therefore, he was made in his Maker's form and shape, with contact and relationship made possible by the presence within him of the human spirit."

So, the difference between soul and spirit is as the difference between the physical and spiritual.



Friday, August 24, 2012

Why Labor Day?

Monday, September 3, 2012 is Labor Day.

And that got me to thinking.

Why labor Day? Why a day for laborers? Are we the unsung heroes of the Industrial Age? The Technological Age? Are we geniuses, modern marvels? Well, maybe some of us are, but most of us are just average workers doing our jobs.  So, why do we need a special day?

Labor Day in the United States was first celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City. It became a federal holiday in 1894, when, following the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals during the Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland put reconciliation with the labor movement as a top political priority. Cleveland chose the September date because he was concerned that aligning an American labor holiday with existing international May Day celebrations would stir up negative emotions linked to the Haymarket affair.

The Haymarket affair was a demonstration and unrest that took place at the Haymarket Square in Chicago on Tuesday May, 4, 1886, wherein Chicago police fired on workers during a general strike for the eight hour workday, killing several demonstrators and resulting in the deaths of several police officers, largely from friendly fire. It was the Haymarket affair that led to International Worker’s Day, which is also known as May Day. Ever since, May Day has been a day of demonstrations — and, sometimes, violence.

So, this sounds like “the shot heard around the world” that started a workers revolution. It’s a pity that everything man does has to have violent happenings attached.

But, getting back to my question: why do we workers/laborers need a special day? Now, don’t get me wrong, I appreciate a day off as much as the next guy, but does anybody really celebrate laborers. True, some states may have a parade, but do any of us go to it. I, mean, it’s not like the Memorial Day parades or the Thanksgiving Day parades. What do you do on Labor Day? Do you proudly wear the colors of the company you work for, or something similar?

I appreciate the original meaning of the day — people died in a tragic event and someone wanted to remember them (aside from the political ramifications). But, do we really need all the hoopla about a day for laborers in general? Personally, I’d rather have a raise in salary then another day off — even if it is a paid “holiday”.

As laborers, we should just do our jobs, and appreciate the accolades from our employers, along with the monetary compensation that comes with it. And there’s the point. WE GET PAID. We’re not doing it out of the goodness of our hearts. (Though many of us probably like our jobs and would do it even if we didn’t get paid.)

There seems to be a big “to do” about the Department of Education wanting to pay some teachers that are better than others more money, or bonuses. Some unions are not happy with it. So, what’s the problem? Isn’t that the way it really should be? If you do a better job than the person next to you, shouldn’t you get compensated more? Unions are beneficial. I’m not anti-union. The reasons for which they were started were valid. But, unions can also be detrimental. I’ve never been in a union, but I have been a wage-an-hour employee.  And I have gotten raises and bonuses for doing a better job than the other guy. In unions, pretty much everyone gets paid the same. Of, course, there may be differences as to experience, etc., but for the most part, the pay is the same for the same job.

Now that can be beneficial and it can be detrimental. One detrimental effect I’ve seen first hand is that the union protects the slackers as much as those that are there to really work. I’ve seen instances where there were two people making the same pay, but one was not putting his all into it and the other really was into the job. It eventually affected the conscientious worker negatively. Seeing himself working hard and the other slacking and both receiving the same pay,  the hard worker eventually thought: "Well why should I do all the work and this guy gets the same pay, I’ll start slacking off also". So, the result — two slackers and half the work getting done. Rewarding everyone the same amount of pay for the same job whether they are doing an average job, or an exceptional job undermines creativity and resourcefulness — two things really needed to make companies successful. If you do a better job than the other guy, then you should be recognized and compensated more.

Also, I’ve noticed that some people seem to think that they don’t have to work as hard if they are getting paid less. Now, think about this. If you’re hired to do a job, then you should do it with all of your might, no matter what you are getting paid. If you didn’t like the pay that was offered you, then you didn’t have to take the job. When I was a manager in the Gimbels (remember them?) warehouse, I had a conversation with the Security Manager. He was frustrated because he could not get good security guards. He would hire people, they would wind up stealing from the company and he would have to fire them. In his frustration he said to me “Well, what does the company expect for what they pay them?” (At the time I believe it was $5.50 an hour.) I told him that the problem was not what the people were being paid, but character. It was their character that was in question. I told him that if they took the job for the amount of money offered they should work for that amount of money. I asked him: “What is the difference between $5.50 an hour work and $7.50, or $8.50, or $9 or $10 an hour work?” He had no answer. And, rightly so, since there is no difference. It comes down to character.

And character brings me back to Labor Day. The impetus for Labor Day, though never specifically stated, was character. If everyone had been treating everyone else right, there would not have been the troubles there were. We would probably not even have unions today, because there would not have been a reason to bring them about. Employers and employees needed to realize (and may still in some situations need to realize) that their relationship is symbiotic. Without the businesses — the employers — there would be no jobs and without the employees — the laborers — there would be no product.

So, do we actually need a Labor Day?  I think not. What we do need, though, is for all of us to work/labor together in unity.


And that is something to think about.

(This article was originally published on Bergennews.com.  I re-printed it here with some minor changes and updates.  If interested, you can find the original article here:  http://www.bergennews.com/2010/09/02/something-to-think-about/)



Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Presidents’ Day: Whom Does It Honor?


       As you probably know Presidents Day is a Federal Holiday that is celebrated on the third Monday in February.  When I was growing up Presidents’ Day didn’t exist.  As, a matter of fact, the day we now call Presidents’ Day the Federal Government officially calls Washington’s Birthday.  This is what I remember as a kid in school. 

       Actually February was a month I – if not most kids – looked forward to the most out of the school year (excepting maybe June which meant the end of the school year).  I say that because it was the only month that had two “holidays”.  We – I— looked forward to being off from school on Lincoln’s Birthday, which was February 12 and Washington’s Birthday, which was February 22.  I do realize that Lincoln’s birthday was never a Federal holiday, but it was observed as a legal holiday in a number of states for some time.  And some states that celebrate Washington's Birthday still also recognize Lincoln's Birthday as a separate legal holiday.  (Washington's Birthday became an official federal holiday in 1885 after President Chester A. Arthur signed a bill making it such.)

       I also remember that these days were not always celebrated on a Monday, but on the day of the week on which they actually fell.  The Monday celebration didn’t begin until 1971 as a result of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act that Congress passed and which was signed into law in 1968, but taking effect January 1, 1971.  This moved the official observance of Washington’s Birthday to the third Monday in February.
Though still on the “books” as Washington’s Birthday, the holiday is traditionally called Presidents’ Day, because of the common belief that it honored both Presidents Washington and Lincoln, seeing as how it fell after Lincoln’s birthday, and before Washington’s, but actually coincides with neither.   Some states which had previously celebrated Lincoln’s Birthday dropped the observance after the Federal reform supporting the notion that the two presidential birthdays had been combined.

       So, whose day is it?

       Is it a day to celebrate George Washington or Abraham Lincoln – or both?  Or, should Presidents’ Day honor more than just these two presidents?

       The idea of a Presidents’ Day to honor more than one president is not a new one.  In 1951 the "President's Day National Committee" was formed by Harold Stonebridge Fischer of Compton, California, who became its National Executive Director for the next two decades.  The purpose was not to honor any particular President, but to honor the office of the Presidency.  Long story short, it never happened.

       Now a day to honor the presidency of the United States, or presidents as a whole is not a bad idea.  Consider the two presidents that are presumably “honored” on Presidents’ Day. 

      George Washington, our first president was certainly a man of accomplishment.  He is known as the “Father of Our Country”, and arguably, it could be said that without his leadership in the Revolutionary War, there would be no United States of America.

       And, Abraham Lincoln, the president during a time that may have been the worse strife for America, notably the Civil War (or the War Between the States, as it is also commonly called), certainly risked his life in the pursuit of holding our nation together.  I won’t get into speculation of what this land would be like if two countries existed on this American soil – a United States of America and a Confederate States of America – that is for another writer or another time.  President Lincoln’s assassination speaks of the consequences that one could face holding down the office of the President of the United States.

       But, are these the only two Presidents that should have some honor or recognition?

       How about the other presidents who lost their lives to this job?  There were James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy, all of whom were taken by an assassin’s bullet. (And yes, I do remember where I was on the day President Kennedy was assassinated.)  These, of course, are the extreme.  But, are there other Presidents worth honoring?

       Being President of the United States is a stressful job.  Compare pictures of President Obama today with pictures of him when he first took office.  It looks as if he aged quite a lot in these past few years.
 I’ve noticed this with other Presidents as well.  Noticeably, the job takes a lot out of you.  Sometimes you have to make decisions that hold the very fate of the nation – and the lives of citizens –at risk.   What President wouldn’t be under a lot of stress having to send soldiers into war – or worrying how to protect citizens against terrorists?

        Look at the administrations of many of the Presidents and see the issues they had to deal with through their presidency – war, civil rights, and social reform – many of the same issues that are being dealt with today.  It certainly is stressful having to deal with these issues, hoping that the decisions you make are more helpful to the welfare of the country than detrimental.  Yes, they sometimes have to make such hard decisions.

       Thomas Jefferson had to send a fledgling navy to stave off the pirates waylaying American ships along the Barbary Coast of Africa.  This from a man who had been opposed earlier in his political career to funding a navy for anything more than a coastal defense.

       James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine which proclaimed the Americas should be free from future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs.  The Monroe Doctrine held that the United States considered the Western Hemisphere as no longer a place for European colonization; that any future effort to gain further political control in the hemisphere or to violate the independence of existing states would be treated as an act of hostility.  This, in some ways, helped in the United States expansion across North America, primarily unfettered, along with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.  But, mainly, through it the United States was the first nation to set an example to the rest of the world for its support of the "cause of liberty and humanity."

       There was James Polk, a President possibly not as well-known as some others, whose unpopular decision to go to war with Mexico ultimately gained for America the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.

       Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt who assumed the presidency upon the death of President McKinley became known as "trust-buster" for his aggressive attacks on trusts (curbing the power of large corporations) during his two terms.  Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal.  He sent the Great White Fleet on a world tour to demonstrate American power.  He also negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize – the first American to win the Nobel Prize in any field.

       And then there is Harry "The buck stops here" Truman who made what very well may have been the most controversial decision in modern history – the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

       And Lyndon Johnson, another Vice-President who became President after the man he served was assassinated. Because his containment policy required America to make a serious effort to stop all Communist expansion, he expanded the numbers and roles of the American military in Vietnam.

       And let’s not forget “The Great Communicator”, Ronald Reagan who revitalized the American military, and who played a major role in ending the Cold War.

       George W. Bush presided over a presidency that saw quite possibly the most devastating attack ever on U. S. citizens on American soil.

       I’ve mentioned only a small number of the 43 Presidents (Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms filling the roles of 22nd and 24th President) who have served in this great office—an office that at times in history has possibly been the most important in the world.

      Yes, the job of the President of the United States of America is a stressful one.  And I think it is an office worth honoring. 
      
       None of these men were or are perfect.  Some came from humble beginnings – some from wealth.  Some had great accomplishments—some not so great.  You may like some and dislike some.  But the thing is they all stepped into an office where sometimes the decisions they made held fates in the balance.  And, sometimes, they and their decisions were unappreciated.

      Whether history looks upon them as great Presidents or ineffective Presidents, these men all need to be respected.  I think they all made decisions that they felt were the right decisions at the time.  As Harry S. Truman himself wrote later in life about his decision to use the atomic bomb, "I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

      I think all of these men truly believed that what they were doing was best for the country even though history may have proved some wrong.  Despite the thanklessness that sometimes came with the job, I think they loved what they were doing.  You would have to love it to step into such a pressure-filled job.

      These men also all proved what I was told as a child, that in this country anyone (who was born here) could grow up to become President of the United States of America – perhaps the greatest job on the face of the Earth.
  
And that is something to think about.