Cannibalism: Things are getting ugly

[Cerebrum123]

Such a "devolution" would take millions upon millions of years to get us to the point of no longer having consciousness. I figure that if we come to that point, a potentially huge theme in the Bible, the Resurrection of the Saints, will have long-since become tenuous.

Evolution isn't necessary to explain sin . . . unless you are saying that humans couldn't be sinful if they evolved. But since sin requires only self-awareness and moral reason, it doesn't much matter how these preconditions were met. Humans could have evolved to the point of emergent consciousness or God could have imparted a soul into humans, giving them moral reason. What's important is that there's nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents a species from attaining ethical or moral codes.

In order to sin one has to be in direct disobedience to the will of God, and without knowledge of what constitutes obedience, then there would be no such thing as sin, and we would all be innocent(hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden).

You had written that God's purpose for coming to earth was the salvation of Man; if we extend that purpose for God having created the earth for the salvation of Man, that does get into theodicy problems, since God would have purposed something that required the Fall.

But if you're only saying that God's purpose for creating the earth was to create Man, I'd say that's possible but seems entirely chauvinistic to me. Even more so if you were to say that God's purpose for creating the universe, with an untold number of other planets capable of supporting life, was the creation of our particular species.

I never said that God's purpose of creation was so that He could save man from sin, but the universe was created with man as the primary purpose. How is that chauvinistic? And what on Earth does the universes size have to do with anything, especially since we so far haven't even found a planet that is capable of supporting life?

Why would other creatures be unable to partake in Christ's salvation? I don't think that I ever advocated a "multiple saviors" scenario. It's possible, if other species developed the need for a salvation akin to humankind, that Christ would come to them also. It could be possible that human kind, like the Israelite nation before it, has been chosen by grace and charity to bring the salvation of Christ to other peoples. I think it's a good exercise to ask just what doctrine is violated by other creatures gaining an understanding of God and a capacity for moral reasoning? It's not even a drastic hypothetical . . . we will develop machines, within the next 100-300 years, with these capacities. It would be good to have a theological framework available to address their integration.

—Sam

To be saved one has to be a descendant of Adam, and kinsmen of Christ, that wouldn't extend to animals on this planet, or anything that would evolve elsewhere. Also machines built by men would not be able to partake in this either due to the above.Also SALVATION for MACHINES?!?!? You do realize that they would be MANMADE, and would have no SOULS, right? Unless something changes, I'm not seeing a whole lot of point in continuing this conversation.

[Ansgar Seraph]

In order to sin one has to be in direct disobedience to the will of God, and without knowledge of what constitutes obedience, then there would be no such thing as sin, and we would all be innocent(hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden).

That's what's referred to as "moral reasoning." One doesn't need to be in direct disobedience to the will of God, however. Direct disobedience requires knowledge of God's will and Paul writes that there exists a general revelation in nature; one can therefore sin by failing to adhere to moral rules that deal with other people or Nature itself. Even without the Torah, Gentiles were capable of sin.

I never said that God's purpose of creation was so that He could save man from sin, but the universe was created with man as the primary purpose. How is that chauvinistic? And what on Earth does the universes size have to do with anything, especially since we so far haven't even found a planet that is capable of supporting life?

Well, you wrote: "Since God knows 'the end from the beginning", and His purpose when coming to this Earth was the salvation of MAN, do you really think that God didn't have mankind in view for His creation?" And so I was trying to respond to both points in the contingent fashion that they appeared to be made.

It's chauvinistic, in my view, to take the position that mankind is of unique prominence in the universe, given its capacity to harbor life well outside our own planet. We have found potentially habitable exoplanets already and, given our crude and elementary searches thus far, undoubtedly have under-counted them.

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that prevents extra-terrestrial species from existing or being intelligent. There's nothing doctrinal that states God made the universe exclusively for our species. I wouldn't be terrifically disappointed to find out that we alone became intelligent creatures capable of abstract moral reasoning but I definitely wouldn't be shocked to discover otherwise, either.

To be saved one has to be a descendant of Adam, and kinsmen of Christ, that wouldn't extend to animals on this planet, or anything that would evolve elsewhere.

But that's not doctrine — that's your interpretation of the text. And it's an unnecessary addition: let's say that we were able to clone a neanderthal and bring him into our modern day. Neanderthals were, by all accounts, intelligent and capable of speech. Would this man, not a descendant of Adam, be a moral agent? Would he understand, however rudimentary the knowledge, the difference between right and wrong? If he knew right but did wrong, could he be offered salvation in Christ? I see no moral or religious reasons why he could not. And, given as how it is scientifically impossible that our present population was borne from two individuals within the last 100,000 years, I find this avenue of thought more plausible than biological relationship to Adam being necessary.

Also machines built by men would not be able to partake in this either due to the above.Also SALVATION for MACHINES?!?!? You do realize that they would be MANMADE, and would have no SOULS, right? Unless something changes, I'm not seeing a whole lot of point in continuing this conversation.

Man was made, according to YECs, but has a soul. Would God be incapable of giving souls to machines that have intelligence and moral reasoning? Can you show me, by a priori or a posteriori reasoning, that a soul is substantially distinct from the mind? Substance dualism is by no means a necessary Christian philosophy — I'm not saying that substance dualism is wrong (I have a bias towards it, myself) . . . but it's certainly not the obvious fact that you seem to think it is.

These might not be particularly practical questions to ask — you won't find any sentient apes or machines in your lifetime, most likely. However, they are worth asking if for no other reason than how they force us to separate doctrine from bias and to broaden or narrow our thought accordingly.

—Sam

[rogue06]

1.Ok, since rogue pointed out that evolution doesn't necessitate "better", and only carries survival advantage. then it is definitely a possibility that man could "devolve" to a point that there was no more morality. This idea is ludicrous from a Biblical standpoint, but entirely possible under evolutionary scenarios. Also, if evolution is true, then it still doesn't explain how we are actually sinful. We would just be one highly advanced animal, with nothing special, and our acting on our instincts would simply be the same as any other animal doing the same thing.

Ran across several loose pages from an old book in a box last week while searching through the basement so I'm not sure which work they're from but it was apparently by Andrew C. Zenos. A quick search reveals he was a professor of Bible and Ecclesiastical History and dean of the Presbyterian McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago who retired in 1934.

He makes a provactive point that is pertinent here that I'm going to relate:

Instead of militating against the idea of a primitive fall, the discovery of the law of evolution confirms it by showing that at some time, as the moral sense in man arose, in the very earliest stage of his existence as man, by an act of his own will, he set aside the new and better principle of conduct presented to him in his inner consciousness (disobeyed the voice of God), and fell back to the prehuman non-moral rule of his life. If this is not the doctrine of the Fall expressed in the terms of present-day science, it would be hard to conceive how that doctrine could be formulated in modern words

Just food for thought

[Cerebrum123]

Man was made, according to YECs, but has a soul. Would God be incapable of giving souls to machines that have intelligence and moral reasoning? Can you show me, by a priori or a posteriori reasoning, that a soul is substantially distinct from the mind? Substance dualism is by no means a necessary Christian philosophy — I'm not saying that substance dualism is wrong (I have a bias towards it, myself) . . . but it's certainly not the obvious fact that you seem to think it is.

These might not be particularly practical questions to ask — you won't find any sentient apes or machines in your lifetime, most likely. However, they are worth asking if for no other reason than how they force us to separate doctrine from bias and to broaden or narrow our thought accordingly.

Ok, I have done some thinking since my last post, and here is what I have to say to the above. Dualism is HEAVILY evidenced in the Bible, and here is perhaps one of the strongest supporters of that that I can think of.

2 Corinthians 5
New International Version (NIV)
Awaiting the New Body

5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Our bodies are simply temporary, and our souls are what truly makes us what we are(not saying that we can't have our personalities affected by physical things like brain damage). Our bodies are referred to here as "tents", and basically "temporary dwelling places", but we still live on even after our bodies are gone. Also it says that once we are away from our bodies we are present with the Lord, not something that makes sense if we are just products of our physical brains. These verses also support dualism heavily.

Matthew 17
New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

Also, we were made in God's image, and He is spirit, so our having spirits matches up with this. Also Jesus pre-existed His birth, and that also lends itself towards dualism.

As for God giving souls to machines that humans make, well that is simply ludicrous. Why on earth would God give souls to something that mankind made? At that point, people would definitely begin to think that they had become just as powerful as God, given that they could create a machine that was as intelligent, and had a soul. This does NOT fit in with the character of God.

But that's not doctrine — that's your interpretation of the text. And it's an unnecessary addition: let's say that we were able to clone a neanderthal and bring him into our modern day. Neanderthals were, by all accounts, intelligent and capable of speech. Would this man, not a descendant of Adam, be a moral agent? Would he understand, however rudimentary the knowledge, the difference between right and wrong? If he knew right but did wrong, could he be offered salvation in Christ? I see no moral or religious reasons why he could not. And, given as how it is scientifically impossible that our present population was borne from two individuals within the last 100,000 years, I find this avenue of thought more plausible than biological relationship to Adam being necessary.

Would you care to show me where that interpretation is wrong? Especially since throughout the NT the relationship between Christ and Adam has so much emphasis. Here, I'll give a few examples.

First we have Luke connect Christ to Adam through genealogies.

Luke 3:37-38
New International Version (NIV)
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Then we have in Romans that just as death and sin entered the world through one man, salvation came through one man.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Now we have Corinthians expressing the connection betwen Adam and Christ, the "last Adam".

1 Corinthians 15:21-23
New International Version (NIV)
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

1 Corinthians 15:44-46
New International Version (NIV)
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

What sense does it make to have a "last Adam" if there was no "first Adam"?

In Hebrews it says that Jesus needed to become human in order to save us.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

This article goes into more detail about Jesus being our kinsman redeemer, and WHY it is important(it is based on previous laws given to Israel). http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/hb02-11.html
I hope that this is enough to make you understand why Jesus being our kinsman redeemer is important, and if it is not doctrine, then it should be listed as such, because it is vitally important.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Ok, I have done some thinking since my last post, and here is what I have to say to the above. Dualism is HEAVILY evidenced in the Bible, and here is perhaps one of the strongest supporters of that that I can think of.

You can separate verses by either using the [nocode][/nocode] tags or the [nocode][/nocode] tags:

EDIT: well, that didn't work. Just use verse and /verse or box and /box, with each word surrounded by brackets. [ ]

2 Corinthians 5 (NIV)

Awaiting the New Body

5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Our bodies are simply temporary, and our souls are what truly makes us what we are(not saying that we can't have our personalities affected by physical things like brain damage). Our bodies are referred to here as "tents", and basically "temporary dwelling places", but we still live on even after our bodies are gone. Also it says that once we are away from our bodies we are present with the Lord, not something that makes sense if we are just products of our physical brains. These verses also support dualism heavily.

I would be especially cautious simply trying to proof-text substance dualism in Paul's writings. For one, Paul's dualism, while present, was almost certainly conceptually different than the common modern idea of Cartesian dualism. Paul was working within two distinct spheres, blending Hellenistic and Platonic concepts of the soul with traditional Hebrew concepts of afterlife. Traditional Hebrew concepts (and this is why you won't find good proof-texts in the OT) of the afterlife did not separate soul from body, save for those who entered into Sheol after death. As Sheol is a sort of "shadowland," there was no particular life or animation to the persons inhabiting it and it would be wrong to classify them as "souls" in the modern understanding. In Aristotelian thought, the soul is likewise incomplete without the body; it is the body's reason and emotion, the spirit of the body. Unlike Plato, who believed the intellect to be immortal and immaterial, Aristotle seemed content to regard the intellect as being immaterial but tied to the body: not a distinct substance, necessarily, even if it is a distinct form. And if there was conflict in Paul's background of information, there was twice as much conflict interpreting what he wrote: the Gnostics apparently borrowed some of Paul's thought to advocate their philosophy of immaterialism, an extreme form of substance dualism. Irenaeus struck out heavily against this interpretation, insisting on the heretical nature of such a separation.

So I would be cautious with proof-texts, here. Not that it much matters: the philosophies of dualism and materialism aren't to be decided solely on proof-texts, anyhow. Aquinas certainly had to lean heavily on Aristotelian thought when constructing his defense of substance dualism and the problem still exists today in much the same form as it did then.

Neither does it fully address my point. You argued that, because machines are made, they cannot possess souls. Well, men are also made and, scripturally, were created beings from the beginning. So only part of the question deals with substance dualism. If we don't assume substance dualism to be true, we would have to determine whether emergent dualism is an acceptable philosophy — and I think you'd find it impossible to proof-text substance dualism in Paul's work while simultaneously refusing emergent dualism. Even given substance dualism, however, you're still dealing with a created thing being provided a soul. The question becomes, then, by what means do we stipulate that only H. sapiens can be provided souls?

Matthew 17 (NIV)

The Transfiguration

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

Also, we were made in God's image, and He is spirit, so our having spirits matches up with this. Also Jesus pre-existed His birth, and that also lends itself towards dualism.

Remember, however, that Elijah was bodily taken up into Heaven and, according to tradition, an angel fought Satan for possession of Moses' body. It's no accident, then, that Moses and Elijah appear bodily with Christ. Hebrew tradition would necessitate them having their bodies to appear among humans.

God is indeed spirit, but there was (and still is) a distinction between spirit and soul. God's spirit-ness has never meant that He is simply a soul, whereas we are soul and body — it has traditionally been interpreted to mean that God is completely distinct from Man, a wholly different Form of being.

As for God giving souls to machines that humans make, well that is simply ludicrous. Why on earth would God give souls to something that mankind made? At that point, people would definitely begin to think that they had become just as powerful as God, given that they could create a machine that was as intelligent, and had a soul. This does NOT fit in with the character of God.

Well, I don't think that you've got quite enough of an inner lane to be able to say this sort of thing doesn't fit with God's character. We can make babies and God gives them souls. And it's certainly the case that men do need God providing their creations with souls in order to think that they have become as powerful as God . . . Nimrod, for example, needed no such complexity for his hubris. This is merely a projection of your bias onto what God would or would not do.

Would you care to show me where that interpretation is wrong? Especially since throughout the NT the relationship between Christ and Adam has so much emphasis. Here, I'll give a few examples.

First we have Luke connect Christ to Adam through genealogies.

Luke 3:37-38
New International Version (NIV)
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Then we have in Romans that just as death and sin entered the world through one man, salvation came through one man.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Now we have Corinthians expressing the connection betwen Adam and Christ, the "last Adam".

1 Corinthians 15:21-23
New International Version (NIV)
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

1 Corinthians 15:44-46
New International Version (NIV)
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

What sense does it make to have a "last Adam" if there was no "first Adam"?

In Hebrews it says that Jesus needed to become human in order to save us.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

This article goes into more detail about Jesus being our kinsman redeemer, and WHY it is important(it is based on previous laws given to Israel). http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/hb02-11.html
I hope that this is enough to make you understand why Jesus being our kinsman redeemer is important, and if it is not doctrine, then it should be listed as such, because it is vitally important.

It makes sense to have a "last Adam" for the same metaphorical reason there was a "first Adam:" through Man's sin, God was separated from men, though God-made-Man's sacrifice were men restored to God. A specific genealogy isn't necessary for that to be true; indeed, a specific genealogy serves to inhibit the idea of universal salvation not only to exclusive species but to exclusive groups. Thus, Paul had to fight with his own brethren concerning the salvation of the gentiles. We know that physical death did not begin with Adam. Spiritual death may have but it is a poor soteriology, then, to say that the spiritual death is necessarily bound to the physical traits of an individual. The passages you cite are better interpreted, in my understanding, not as linking Christ to a physical body but rather linking Christ to human nature. And that nature is moral reasoning and moral failing. If, then, other species or creations can have the capacity for what is essentially human nature, there exists no necessary limitation that would prevent them from participating in God's full sacrificial work.

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

You can separate verses by either using the [nocode][/nocode] tags or the [nocode][/nocode] tags:

EDIT: well, that didn't work. Just use verse and /verse or box and /box, with each word surrounded by brackets. [ ]

2 Corinthians 5 (NIV)

Awaiting the New Body

5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

I will try and do that next time.

I would be especially cautious simply trying to proof-text substance dualism in Paul's writings. For one, Paul's dualism, while present, was almost certainly conceptually different than the common modern idea of Cartesian dualism. Paul was working within two distinct spheres, blending Hellenistic and Platonic concepts of the soul with traditional Hebrew concepts of afterlife. Traditional Hebrew concepts (and this is why you won't find good proof-texts in the OT) of the afterlife did not separate soul from body, save for those who entered into Sheol after death. As Sheol is a sort of "shadowland," there was no particular life or animation to the persons inhabiting it and it would be wrong to classify them as "souls" in the modern understanding. In Aristotelian thought, the soul is likewise incomplete without the body; it is the body's reason and emotion, the spirit of the body. Unlike Plato, who believed the intellect to be immortal and immaterial, Aristotle seemed content to regard the intellect as being immaterial but tied to the body: not a distinct substance, necessarily, even if it is a distinct form. And if there was conflict in Paul's background of information, there was twice as much conflict interpreting what he wrote: the Gnostics apparently borrowed some of Paul's thought to advocate their philosophy of immaterialism, an extreme form of substance dualism. Irenaeus struck out heavily against this interpretation, insisting on the heretical nature of such a separation.

Then how about I add some proof from the OT. I believe that these verses from 1 Samuel do good as "proof texts" for a soul.

1 Samuel 28 (NIV)

1 Samuel 28:14-16
New International Version (NIV)
14 “What does he look like?” he asked.

“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

“I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has departed from you and become your enemy?

Clearly Samuel is dead, and clearly his spirit is speaking to Saul here, this wouldn't make sense without the concept of the soul. Also consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where they are in Sheol, but they are clearly able to talk and experience things, so we have even more evidence of a soul there.

Also, I am working strictly from the Bible here, and am not trying to rely on philosophers, so I'm not entirely sure why you brought them up.

So I would be cautious with proof-texts, here. Not that it much matters: the philosophies of dualism and materialism aren't to be decided solely on proof-texts, anyhow. Aquinas certainly had to lean heavily on Aristotelian thought when constructing his defense of substance dualism and the problem still exists today in much the same form as it did then.

I'm not just trying to proof text here, I am trying to give a consistent picture of what the Bible says, and you have done nothing accept say I am wrong so far.

Neither does it fully address my point. You argued that, because machines are made, they cannot possess souls. Well, men are also made and, scripturally, were created beings from the beginning. So only part of the question deals with substance dualism. If we don't assume substance dualism to be true, we would have to determine whether emergent dualism is an acceptable philosophy — and I think you'd find it impossible to proof-text substance dualism in Paul's work while simultaneously refusing emergent dualism. Even given substance dualism, however, you're still dealing with a created thing being provided a soul. The question becomes, then, by what means do we stipulate that only H. sapiens can be provided souls?

Well, homo sapiens are the only creatures specifically created in the image of God. I think that that is a pretty good point to start with. That was my point to begin with anyway, that these machines would not be made by God, and He has no reason to give the machines souls(and I give more detailed reasons below).

Remember, however, that Elijah was bodily taken up into Heaven and, according to tradition, an angel fought Satan for possession of Moses' body. It's no accident, then, that Moses and Elijah appear bodily with Christ. Hebrew tradition would necessitate them having their bodies to appear among humans.

The point about Elijah is interesting, but since Moses was dead, and the fight was more about the idea that Israelite's might later begin to worship the body of Moses(at least that is the way I saw that), I don't see how this makes it clear that Moses was taken into heaven intact, and kept his body. Also see my point about Samuel, and I prefer to use the actual Bible rather than Jewish tradition. You do know how Jesus reacted to "the traditions of men", right?

God is indeed spirit, but there was (and still is) a distinction between spirit and soul. God's spirit-ness has never meant that He is simply a soul, whereas we are soul and body — it has traditionally been interpreted to mean that God is completely distinct from Man, a wholly different Form of being.

Yes, God is different from man, but we are also made in His image, and an immortal soul certainly goes along way towards His image. I'm not claiming that spirit and soul are the same thing, but they can be used interchangeably, and they are likely similar in some way.

Well, I don't think that you've got quite enough of an inner lane to be able to say this sort of thing doesn't fit with God's character. We can make babies and God gives them souls. And it's certainly the case that men do need God providing their creations with souls in order to think that they have become as powerful as God . . . Nimrod, for example, needed no such complexity for his hubris. This is merely a projection of your bias onto what God would or would not do.

So says the person that claimed that it would be chauvinistic of God to create this universe just for us. Also, I never claimed that people needed something for them to be prideful, but that God giving souls to man made machines without directly telling them that He did so, wouldn't match up with His character as revealed in the Bible, and here is why. If people can make machines, and then God adds a soul without them knowing, then they are going to think that THEY made the soul, and that THEY have reached the level of God. God is not the author of confusion, and this would be VERY confusing to many people. Also, we do not "make"(create in the way God does) babies, they are a result of God's design in humans for procreation, and not something we have truly "made".

It makes sense to have a "last Adam" for the same metaphorical reason there was a "first Adam:" through Man's sin, God was separated from men, though God-made-Man's sacrifice were men restored to God. A specific genealogy isn't necessary for that to be true; indeed, a specific genealogy serves to inhibit the idea of universal salvation not only to exclusive species but to exclusive groups. Thus, Paul had to fight with his own brethren concerning the salvation of the gentiles. We know that physical death did not begin with Adam. Spiritual death may have but it is a poor soteriology, then, to say that the spiritual death is necessarily bound to the physical traits of an individual. The passages you cite are better interpreted, in my understanding, not as linking Christ to a physical body but rather linking Christ to human nature. And that nature is moral reasoning and moral failing. If, then, other species or creations can have the capacity for what is essentially human nature, there exists no necessary limitation that would prevent them from participating in God's full sacrificial work.

—Sam

Here I see a MAJOR problem, you see Adam as metaphor, and that is a big problem. Also, since Adam was the ancestor of ALL humanity, then there would be no human left out of salvation, but animals and other species, yeah, but they weren't made in the image of God. Also death came into the world through Adam both physically AND spiritually at the Fall(at least this is waht the bible teaches, regardless of whether or not you choose to trust God's word), no vertebrate death before then(Genesis makes it clear that there was no death of "nephesh chayah" before sin, this would include most vertebrate life forms(possibly all), but not things like plants, and insects and other invertebrates are extremely unlikely to be in that category). Genesis specifically shows that physical death is a part of the curse, and the rest of the Bible does likewise(when it is mentioned). When God said in Genesis "for the day you eat of it you shall surely die" that last part is literally translated as "you will dying die" which would mean begin a process of dying. Not to mention that part of the curse was that "for dust you are and dust you shall return", and this clearly speaks of physical death(when we die we rot, and basically return to earth from which we came).

Here we have a lot of words, and a lot of references to philosophers, but no real substantive argument. You are basically using human concepts, and trying to use them to argue against the clear Biblical picture(I'm assuming that ToE plays heavily into your distrust of many Biblical doctrines such as creation(not creationism, but creation, which was heavily used by the ECF's, and the NT writers, and even to an extent Jesus). You obviously seem to think that man made philosophies trump God's revealed word, and there is nothing I can do about that, but you have also done VERY little arguing to refute my position other than claim bias(which considering what you were claiming I was biased on was rather rich given what you said about God being chauvinistic), and one small argument about Elijah. I also see what appears to me to be a lot of hand-waving. You didn't even respond at all to the "kinsman redeemer" problem at all.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Then how about I add some proof from the OT. I believe that these verses from 1 Samuel do good as "proof texts" for a soul.

1 Samuel 28 (NIV)

1 Samuel 28:14-16
New International Version (NIV)
14 “What does he look like?” he asked.

“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

“I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has departed from you and become your enemy?

Clearly Samuel is dead, and clearly his spirit is speaking to Saul here, this wouldn't make sense without the concept of the soul. Also consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where they are in Sheol, but they are clearly able to talk and experience things, so we have even more evidence of a soul there.

Not necessarily. Samuel in Sheol was understood to be a shade, not a soul. There is certainly distinction between the former and our modern understanding of the latter; shades in Sheol were closer aligned to the ancestral spirits of Phoenician cultures than with Platonic intellects or souls. They were considered, in short, ghosts — incorporeal spirits lacking animation; in general, they do not suffer or praise God or undergo an independent resurrection. Isaiah 26, for example, speaks of a resurrection of the dead but specifically of dead bodies. While modern readers often consider the soul as independent and substantially distinct of the body, Isaiah writes that the non-resurrected spirits will be aborted from their abodes in the grave.

Given the prevailing understanding at the time of I Samuel's writing, it isn't necessary that Samuel was depicted as even a detached soul; his shade certainly appeared to Saul but this would have been understood as an incomplete and powerless form, distinct from both Thomistic thought and even from later depictions of the afterlife in the Bible.

Also, I am working strictly from the Bible here, and am not trying to rely on philosophers, so I'm not entirely sure why you brought them up.

Because this is very much a philosophical question; virtually every theologian dealing with the concept is going to have to eventually deal with the influences of the writers. For Paul, that means dealing with Hellenistic influences, namely Plato's and Aristotle's theories of the soul/intellect. For us, that means recognizing that our own views have been shaped by thousands of years of philosophical discussion on the subject and bringing that broad understanding to the text — you might believe that the text says something plainly but without understanding the external influences of the writers, you're bound to miss a lot.

I'm not just trying to proof text here, I am trying to give a consistent picture of what the Bible says, and you have done nothing accept say I am wrong so far.

Well, that's not quite fair, I'd say. You're using Bible verses alone to support your claim regarding substance dualism — that's proof-texting, for good or bad. And I'm not saying that you are wrong to see substance dualism in the Bible. As I wrote earlier, I'm particularly biased towards it myself. But it's not necessarily true and I've been writing about the varying influences surrounding Paul and, in broader scope, the Bible precisely to describe how this isn't a situation where "plain reading" is particularly helpful. So I'm not saying that you're wrong about substance dualism — I am saying that your exclusion of other ideas is wrong because your reading is too simplistic.

Well, homo sapiens are the only creatures specifically created in the image of God. I think that that is a pretty good point to start with. That was my point to begin with anyway, that these machines would not be made by God, and He has no reason to give the machines souls(and I give more detailed reasons below).

Here, you're putting your cart before the horse, in terms of this conversation. First, you have to establish that the "image of God" is the physical structure or nature of H. sapiens and only then can you exclude other beings. If the "image of God" is not Man's physical nature — if it is intellect or mind or consciousness — then God's provision of a soul can be given to any created thing that meets the criteria. Machines are "made by God" just about as much as in vitro fertilization children are "made by God," if we're looking at this from a purely mechanical standpoint!

The point about Elijah is interesting, but since Moses was dead, and the fight was more about the idea that Israelite's might later begin to worship the body of Moses(at least that is the way I saw that), I don't see how this makes it clear that Moses was taken into heaven intact, and kept his body. Also see my point about Samuel, and I prefer to use the actual Bible rather than Jewish tradition. You do know how Jesus reacted to "the traditions of men", right?

We are not given a direct reason for Moses' body being the subject of angelic contest but it's very unlikely that it was because Israelites would worship his body. Moses was allegedly buried by God and no one knew the exact burial site, for one. Moreover, I don't recall any worship of dead bodies in ancient Israel.

You aren't using "the actual Bible," unfortunately. There is no "the actual Bible" nicely separated from interpretation. So it makes a great deal of sense to examine the culture and traditions surrounding biblical passages and authors. If you read a book without understanding the time in which its written, you are in great danger of projecting your own biases into the text, regardless of what the authors truly meant.

Yes, God is different from man, but we are also made in His image, and an immortal soul certainly goes along way towards His image. I'm not claiming that spirit and soul are the same thing, but they can be used interchangeably, and they are likely similar in some way.

But if they are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable and you can't say that "our spirit matches up with his" meaning that "our souls match up with his."

So says the person that claimed that it would be chauvinistic of God to create this universe just for us.

Well, yes. I would certainly hope that you can see the difference between making exclusionary statements as to who or what can be the subject of God's grace and making tenuous inclusive statements keeping that door open! The one is borne of too much faith in one's own knowledge while the other is exactly the opposite. Unlike your statement, I made no absolute claims — I agreed that your claim was possible but, to me, it seemed entirely chauvinistic. That's a long way from ruling an idea out entirely based on your projection of God's character!

Also, I never claimed that people needed something for them to be prideful, but that God giving souls to man made machines without directly telling them that He did so, wouldn't match up with His character as revealed in the Bible, and here is why. If people can make machines, and then God adds a soul without them knowing, then they are going to think that THEY made the soul, and that THEY have reached the level of God. God is not the author of confusion, and this would be VERY confusing to many people. Also, we do not "make"(create in the way God does) babies, they are a result of God's design in humans for procreation, and not something we have truly "made".

That's pretty highly speculative. First, how would people know whether machines had souls until they were in God's presence? How would they know whether intelligent alien beings had souls? Here, you are supposing that God would not incorporate intelligent beings into His plans of unification principally on the idea that it might be confusing for people given to hubris. I wouldn't call that a very rigorous objection.

What's the distinction between "God's design in humans for procreation" and other avenues of intelligence? Would a cloned human be God's design? Can we so easily arbitrarily limit what God's design is? Could He not have incorporated such alternative avenues for intelligence into His designs?

Here I see a MAJOR problem, you see Adam as metaphor, and that is a big problem. Also, since Adam was the ancestor of ALL humanity, then there would be no human left out of salvation, but animals and other species, yeah, but they weren't made in the image of God. Also death came into the world through Adam both physically AND spiritually at the Fall(at least this is waht the bible teaches, regardless of whether or not you choose to trust God's word), no vertebrate death before then(Genesis makes it clear that there was no death of "nephesh chayah" before sin, this would include most vertebrate life forms(possibly all), but not things like plants, and insects and other invertebrates are extremely unlikely to be in that category). Genesis specifically shows that physical death is a part of the curse, and the rest of the Bible does likewise(when it is mentioned). When God said in Genesis "for the day you eat of it you shall surely die" that last part is literally translated as "you will dying die" which would mean begin a process of dying. Not to mention that part of the curse was that "for dust you are and dust you shall return", and this clearly speaks of physical death(when we die we rot, and basically return to earth from which we came).

Well, that is indeed an issue and I'd say it's been apparent for a while! But, as I wrote earlier, there is no doctrinal conflict with Adam being an archetype or with death entering the world prior to the Fall . . . and that's a good thing, since such very clearly wasn't the case! I do, in fact, trust God's Word . . . but I don't hold to your interpretation of God's Word. And that, at the heart of this discussion, is the true problem: you are treating your interpretation as the correct and necessary interpretation and I'm attempting to demonstrate why that's not the case. If you broaden your perspective and external knowledge surrounding the Bible, your interpretation will likely change.

That's why it's really a good thing that we don't try and decide for ourselves what extra theology should be doctrinal. Who has succeeded in that endeavor? The Apostolic Creed is what's necessarily Christian and that means Christianity is a mighty big tent. It's an act of hubris (or chauvinism, to use my earlier term) to limit Christ's message more than is absolutely required by the Creed.

Here we have a lot of words, and a lot of references to philosophers, but no real substantive argument. You are basically using human concepts, and trying to use them to argue against the clear Biblical picture(I'm assuming that ToE plays heavily into your distrust of many Biblical doctrines such as creation(not creationism, but creation, which was heavily used by the ECF's, and the NT writers, and even to an extent Jesus). You obviously seem to think that man made philosophies trump God's revealed word, and there is nothing I can do about that, but you have also done VERY little arguing to refute my position other than claim bias(which considering what you were claiming I was biased on was rather rich given what you said about God being chauvinistic), and one small argument about Elijah. I also see what appears to me to be a lot of hand-waving. You didn't even respond at all to the "kinsman redeemer" problem at all.

Well, I generally don't bother with web-link arguments and the topic bores me immensely. It's a tortured extrapolation of a few verses that appear to be the very essence of a legalization of behavior and terminology undone by Christ.

I would also argue that my argument has been considerably more substantive, since I have tried to incorporate the external influences of the text and problems surrounding given interpretations rather than simply appeal to a "plain reading." The rest is an unfortunate screed against "man's knowledge" vs. "God's revelation" that simply isn't factual. Rather, it's a window shade that gets yanked down when people try to get past what one considers a "plain reading." If you think that God made the Bible such that every generation in every culture took the same meaning from a text, I can't very well do much except to point out just why this belief is misinformed and insufficient when dealing with these problems and the Bible itself.

—Sam