Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Mon May 18 2009 - 16:52:52 EDT

Dear Mike,

I'm still not getting it, I'm afraid:

> Hi Iain,
> No, the problem comes if our theology entails that God actually intended us
> to exist. C-Ms argument never gets to us. What is worse, it is content
> to substitute another species for us.

Yes, but what do you mean by "us"? Just how different from the homo sapiens
that we know does it have to be before it's not "us" any more? Let's assume
that the dominant intelligent, rational species is called "human" just for
the sake of argument - after all it's just a label, just a name. So what if
all humans had pointed ears and green blood, and God became incarnate in a
green-blooded pointy-eared individual, and then died on the Cross to save
our doomed race of green-blooded pointy eared sinners? Why would that not
be Christianity just the same - it is the same redemptive plan, the only
difference is that "humans" look a bit different.

> Is it not the case that God cares about our immortal soul more than about
> the physical form the body takes?
> Do you believe that our body is superfluous to our identity? Ghost in a
> machine?

Do I think body is an essential part of our identity? I'm not sure to be
honest. I think our personality is an essential part of our identity, and
this presumably depends on the way our brains are wired up amongst a whole
bunch of other stuff. But it also seems to me that in modern society that
too much importance is placed on image as identity (think of Princess Diana
for example - you couldn't get away from her image in the newspapers - it
became her identity).


Non timeo sed caveo
(")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain world
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 18 16:53:10 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 18 2009 - 16:53:10 EDT