On the Origins and Nature of Man

[LoG]

Curious to see if there is a correlation between the origins, ie creationism vs evolution of man and the belief in the bi/tripartite nature of man.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well, none of the above.

I do not know if there is a special thing that is immaterial about humans; my limited studies in this area have not given me much confidence for any stand on the issue. Since I have found no convincing theological argument and no observable evidence, I will err on the side of saying if there is a division between the physical self and the spiritual self, it does not seem to affect much.

To me this is yet another meaningless theology that people seem to enjoy squabbling about that serves no purpose but to cause divisions and hatred among Christians.

Since there seems to be no observable evidence for a separation of what is my physical self and what may be a non-physical self, this seems to be an issue that is moot at best.

 

[gluadys]

Well, none of the above.

I do not know if there is a special thing that is immaterial about humans; my limited studies in this area have not given me much confidence for any stand on the issue. Since I have found no convincing theological argument and no observable evidence, I will err on the side of saying if there is a division between the physical self and the spiritual self, it does not seem to affect much.

To me this is yet another meaningless theology that people seem to enjoy squabbling about that serves no purpose but to cause divisions and hatred among Christians.

Since there seems to be no observable evidence for a separation of what is my physical self and what may be a non-physical self, this seems to be an issue that is moot at best.

Ditto

 

[Assyrian]

I go for none of the above.

 

[Willtor]

Ditto

Third.

 

[chaoschristian]

Third.

Me too.

 

[jereth]

Why isn't there an option for:
"I believe in evolution and man having a fundamentally physical nature with an emergent mind" ?

That's what I would have voted for.

 

[jereth]

Here's a very interesting one for you all:

Seventh-day Adventists (the "father" of the creationist movement via George McCready Price) are strictly creationist and strictly monistic.

 

[shernren]

Shucks, I don't see the monistic option there.

 

[jereth]

Mind you, monistic human nature != reductionism.

In other words, just because many of us believe that the mind emerges from the brain, this doesn't mean we believe that the mind can be fully explained in terms of its component neurons. The whole may be greater than the sum of its parts.

As an analogy, is it possible to fully explain the properties of water in terms of 10 protons, 8 neutrons and a bunch of electrons?

 

[LoG]

The parts of the nature in Man- Human beings can respond from one out of three parts.
First the body or flesh. Hunger or thirst is an indication that the body is craving food or water. The craving is not normally dependent on the intellect or the emotions. The intellect and emotion may not even wish to take in food or water and yet the body keeps craving it because it is not subject to the other two. This is even more apparent for those who have suffered from addictions. The heroin addict, alcoholic or smoker know that the body has a mind of its own in its desire to have its addictions fed. The mind/will/emotions alone is often not sufficient to overcome the physical cravings and addictions.

Next is the manifestations of the spirit in man. Our conscience is one aspect of the spirit and is that part that God wrote into the heart of every human being. The mind/emotions can convince us that a thing is right and yet the conscience condemns that same thing, clearly proving that they are seperate parts of our nature. Other manifestations of the spirit are wisdom and knowledge. The ability to "know" something that transcends our personal experience or our intellectual ability to comprehend. In the secular the source is considered to be the subconcious, right-brain thinking, collective consiousness etc. It is the spiritual component of our nature that allows one to plug into whatever god-matrix that we individually choose to worship but When we deny this non-physical dimension of our existence, we will not benefit from it and lose the awareness of its existence. It is through faith that we exercise our spirit and the stronger it becomes the more we are able to operate from it as opposed to the other parts of our nature.

It is the spiritual part of our nature that seperates us from the beasts and is the part that was created in the image of God. As a Gapper I can accept that there were hominids before Adam but Adam was created in the image of God in that he is a triune being modeled after a Triune God.

 

[TorchDude]

Well, none of the above.

I do not know if there is a special thing that is immaterial about humans; my limited studies in this area have not given me much confidence for any stand on the issue. Since I have found no convincing theological argument and no observable evidence, I will err on the side of saying if there is a division between the physical self and the spiritual self, it does not seem to affect much.

To me this is yet another meaningless theology that people seem to enjoy squabbling about that serves no purpose but to cause divisions and hatred among Christians.

Since there seems to be no observable evidence for a separation of what is my physical self and what may be a non-physical self, this seems to be an issue that is moot at best.

Need I remind you that we were made in the image of God and appointed the masters and stewards of all creation? It is a responsibility.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Need I remind you that we were made in the image of God and appointed the masters and stewards of all creation? It is a responsibility.

What is a responsibility? To get into a theological argument that is the equivalent of “What colour does God like best?” or “What flavor of ice cream is favored by Jesus?”?

No thanks, I think that there are more important things in life to worry about, maybe when I have more time and nothing else better to do.

 

[bullietdodger]

Here's a very interesting one for you all:

Seventh-day Adventists (the "father" of the creationist movement via George McCready Price) are strictly creationist and strictly monistic.

He may be the modern day "father", but the "creationist movement" was around since five days before Adam.

 

[TorchDude]

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
n. pl. re·spon·si·bil·i·ties 1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

God giving us an obligation, a duty, and the means to accomplish it with. It is within our power to accept or deny that responsibility. I don't see it as being unclear, no offense.

 

[Assyrian]

He may be the modern day "father", but the "creationist movement" was around since five days before Adam.

...for a given value of 'day'.

 

[jereth]

It is the spiritual part of our nature that seperates us from the beasts and is the part that was created in the image of God.

I don't see why the body isn't also created in the image of God. The Bible doesn't say "let us make Man in our Image, but only the spiritual bit of course", it says "let us make Man in our Image". It is very artificial to divide human nature in half like this.

As a Gapper I can accept that there were hominids before Adam but Adam was created in the image of God in that he is a triune being modeled after a Triune God.

Careful, brother, you're skirting on the edge of heresy here. 2000 years of Christian history has conclusively proven that any attempt to find an analogy for the Trinity in nature (including in man himself) is disastrous.

 

[Pats]

I just have some questions:

To those of you who did not vote based on lack of scientific information... does every spiritual matter have to have a scientifically verifiable component in order for it to be acceptable? I am curious, because I don't see how we can verify the existance of God Himself in this way?

I don't see why the body isn't also created in the image of God. The Bible doesn't say "let us make Man in our Image, but only the spiritual bit of course", it says "let us make Man in our Image". It is very artificial to divide human nature in half like this.

I don't see why the human body is created in the image of God, either. When Jesus came, He had a physical body. But, does God? I think the Scripture is clear that God is a Spirit? No?

I think this is much more phylosophical than theological.

Do you guys think all the pagan who claim they can astrol project some spiritual aspect of themselves are liars?

IMHO, although I have not studied this very indepth... I tend to think there is some spiritual component to us that is not necessarily tangable. I liked jereth's comparison of it to the mind or water. I have no idea what catergory that puts me in, if any.

 

[LoG]

To me this is yet another meaningless theology that people seem to enjoy squabbling about that serves no purpose but to cause divisions and hatred among Christians.

I wasn't asking for a debate, simply an anonymous vote for which viewpoint the individual felt to be the most relevant. Your vote for "none of the above" and reasonings for that comment were more than I was looking for but appreciated nonetheless. An added bonus was the general agreement of other TE's on your stance.

Since there seems to be no observable evidence for a separation of what is my physical self and what may be a non-physical self, this seems to be an issue that is moot at best.

Definitely not moot. Christianity is all about the non-physical or spiritual component of our being. It is the pearl of great value behind door #3 for which many have "sold all they own" to possess since it is the "communication device" through which we are able to access the God who is Spirit. The evidence becomes apparent when one practices Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God and a spiritual awakening comes as a result.

 

[jereth]

I don't see why the human body is created in the image of God, either. When Jesus came, He had a physical body. But, does God? I think the Scripture is clear that God is a Spirit? No?

Good question: how is the human body "in the image of God"?

God is a God of action --> Humans have limbs which enable us to act
(cf. "I redeemed you with an outstretched arm...")
God is God who perceives --> Humans have eyes and ears which enable us to perceive
God is a God who speaks --> Humans have a tongue which enable us to speak
God is a God who gives life --> Humans have wombs which bring new life

That's what I'm getting at. In Genesis 1, the "image of God" is defined in terms of humanity's rule and authority over all creation. The way that we exercise our rule and authority is through our bodies -- through our ability to perceive the world, to speak and to act.

IMHO, although I have not studied this very indepth... I tend to think there is some spiritual component to us that is not necessarily tangable. I liked jereth's comparison of it to the mind or water. I have no idea what catergory that puts me in, if any.

There's no question that there is a non-tangible aspect to human existence. I think the issue here is whether this "spiritual" component of us arises from our bodies (which is what evolution and biology would suggest -- emergentism) or whether it exists apart from our bodies (Platonic/Cartesian philosophy).