Re: [asa] Event or process

From: David Buller <bullerscience@gmail.com>
Date: Wed May 09 2007 - 17:50:17 EDT

I'd just like to do a blanket reply to several of the follow-up posts here:

To Bill Hamilton:
I agree 100%

To Christine:
Definitely add Finding Darwin's God to your reading list. Although I would
disagree with Miller doctrinally on other issues (he's Catholic, I'm
Protestant), it is a very well written, thorough book.

"David--as an aside, from your previous postings I get
the impression that you don't share my belief that
animals have souls and go to heaven--maybe this is
part of our miscommunication/disagreement?"

Animals have a *nephesh* soul, although they are not in the image of God.
More importantly, I do not believe that they have an eternal nature.
Remember first of all how we would interpret "the dust of the ground" in
Genesis when the Bible is referring to the creation of Adam. We TEs would
interpret that to mean "the natural realm." In other words, apart from
God's giving him an eternal nature (in my opinion), he had a natural
origin. Secondly, remember the passage (I can't remember where) where the
Bible says that the "soul" of an animal goes down, into the earth?
Borrowing from the earlier definition of the "ground," I would interpret
this to mean that the "soul" of animals biodegrades into the earth along
with any other part of the animal. It is therefore a purely material,
non-eternal, non-spiritual "soul," entirely different from our eternal,
spiritual souls, which the same passage says go up ( i.e., transcending the
natural realm). This also draws a distinction that Jack drew on a little
bit; the animal soul is incapable of existence apart from the animals mind
and body, while our souls are.

Perhaps, then this has caused some miscommunication between us, as you do
seem to accept some miraculous event where Adam recieved the image of God.
You seem to just be using "soul" in a broader context. My question
regarding you position is this; do you see Adam as the first man to have an
eternal nature?

Jack:
Ditto.

Don:
"An apparent consequence of this idea is that such a soul would seem
incapable of existence apart from the body that gave rise to it. Its
reality would be akin to that of the aether once thought essential for
electromagnetic wave propagation. (This view, incidentally, is compatible
with biblical teachings: God saves people, not souls. It is incompatible
with visions of ghosts.)"

I'd be interested to hear you back this up biblically. If "God saves
people, not souls," than would you say that the would of someone in hell is
the same as a soul in heaven, since neither soul has been saved? Also, how
could a soul *ever* be "incapable of existence apart from the body?" I
don't see how this could ever be construed to be "compatible with biblical
teachings." By the way, another view compatible with visions of ghosts is
that some people have overactive imaginations :-)

To everyone:
In case this has caused confusion earlier, when using the word *soul* I have
generally been referring to an eternal soul, not merely animal cognition.
If you have any other questions on what I have written, please ask.

-David Buller

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 9 17:51:15 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 09 2007 - 17:51:15 EDT