Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 20:53:49 EST

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)"

    Hey all,

    How about about a simple thing like this :

    Once upon a time, we all "had it made" ----- wherein mankind was given
    an Eternal Garden with God. Then Adam made the mistake of allowing Eve
    to wander about the Garden, without appropriate adult supervision, and
    she wound up falling for the old "talking snake trick"

    Well, after that, we got banished to this decaying planet and (to make
    matters worse) we now find out that we had sexual relationships with
    red-headed Neanderthals.

    It's no wonder that everybody has been getting grumpy ;-)


    Jan de Coning wrote:
    > What Adrian wrote below does not answer my posting. Thomistic views are
    > not reformed, and I pointed out that almost all philosophies, including
    > Thomism is based on Greek philosophy. For that reason Vollenhoven had
    > trouble with it and showed the original Hebrew and Greek bible texts, which
    > no-where indicated a dualism. If so, show the bible texts,then we may be
    > able to discuss. Again, time and again it has been shown that the medieval
    > RC philosophers based their theories on the philosphies of either Plato, or
    > Aristotle, and argued on the base of Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.
    > Jan de K.
    > At 05:50 PM 04/02/02 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
    > >This is a difficult philosophical and theological problem that is also
    > >highly controversial - today. The position Jan is advocating seems to be
    > >consistent with what has come to be known as nonreductive physicalism -
    > >which is a monistic understanding of the nature of the person. There are
    > >just some major philosophical/theological problems with this approach, and
    > >is quite unsatisfying. The more traditional dualistic understanding (not
    > >Cartesian but Thomistic) does a better job I think. In this case then, the
    > >person is not a soul, but a body AND soul. This position (of dualism) has
    > >been held by Christians since the earliest days, and to claim in the 20th
    > >century that these folks got it wrong all along (i.e. for 20 centuries)on
    > >such a major theological issue is to call into serious question the role of
    > >the Holy Spirit in guiding the church.
    > >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Jan de Koning
    > >To: Walter Hicks
    > >Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    > >Sent: 2/4/2002 2:03 PM
    > >Subject: Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)
    > >
    > >As far as I remember, I replied last week that man does not have a soul,
    > >
    > >but that man is a soul. I quoted some texts from HS, indicating that
    > >the
    > >word "nephesh" was often translated as "living being", for example in
    > >Gen.1. When the word was used in Gen.2, Adam received a "soul" instead
    > >of
    > >becoming a living being. I believe, I referred to writings of some
    > >theologians.
    > >
    > >Jan de K.

    Walt Hicks <>
    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 20:54:56 EST