An Introduction to Job

I meant that they are part of life not the reason or purpose of it. I made other points there too that you missed; how do we define the earth as anything other than what it is now. If it is changed beyond recognition they it is no longer the earth. Same as if you were changed beyond recognition, you wouldn’t be you.

I am not, I am just making the philosophical point, that if you change something then it is no longer what it formerly was. ‘Water into wine’ here means that god would have to change things illogically;

Change the rules of the universe such that the earth can be grown impossibly large to cope with ever greater binary exponents of population expansion [which goes into zillions and on into denumerable amounts].

Resurrection paradox; during a war an innocent farmer is killed, his body blown apart by cannon, a part of his arm flies off into a pigpen and get eaten by a pig. A priest later eats the pig.
When the priest and the farmer are later resurrected, who gets the former cells of their bodies? They were once the farmers arm, then become a constituent part of the priest, so rightly are part of both.

Okay. But you are a body too. Or at least you have a body, and some might think this is an important, wonderful thing a deep part of our human identity.

For me it is dust, the only thing about it that is human is mind and information. My identity is formed from evolutional and environmental informations, then when I am born I take that info on and it becomes part of me. As I grow into myself that info is subsumed by who I am I.e. my soul or that of it which is incarnated in this form.

In short what I am saying is that being human is all about human ‘being’.

Well there is part of the indo-European spiritual culture which relates to that, in celtic lore there was a belief that we are all children of ‘dis’ ~ grown out of the earth, and I think there are similar things in most ancient religions.
He may be correct, that in some animist way the earth itself contains life, and then it would be true that our spirit and souls are literally within the earth. I’d have to believe in the biblical creation to see adam as the living form of all that though. creation theories often think of us as arising from some creation mound, but now we have to take that back nearly 15 billion years to before there were planets even ~ for it to be correct that is!

Ancient peoples didn’t have the same way of seeing things as us, the element of earth wouldn’t have simply referred to matter, chemicals, mud, it would have been a spiritual thing.

interesting!

Changed beyond recognition? Even so, to be changed beyond recognition is not to be changed in one’s essential being. To be beyond recognition is to no longer be recognizable as such. It is not to no longer be such.

In the case of water to wine the water is changed in its essential being. It is not just no longer recognizable as water, it is no longer water. And you got it: God would have to change things illogically to accomplish this miracle. That’s the point. All things being possible for God means that God can change the essential being of things. God can do things that were not possible before. With God, what is possible can change. The conditions of possibility can expand (with God) and contract (with sin and death).

We need to careful however. For instance, you go on to say:

From death to life (or life to death) there is a change in the essential being of something. But if we consider the life before it died, and the life after it is resurrected, there is not a change in essential being there. There is not even a change in recognizability (Jesus’ apostles still recognized Jesus after the resurrection. He was more beautiful, yes, but not essentially different or beyond recognition).

So in the case of resurrection there is a consistency underlying the essential change from life to death to life again. God does what is impossible, making what is dead live again, but the new life is not essentially different from the old.

As to the cells that you mention, these are not part of our essential being. A body is. The cells that constitute that body are not. So with resurrection, it is not a matter of restoring every original detail or spec of dust that once constituted us. Rather it is a matter of restoring our essential being, i.e., bringing us back to life, and making us more beautiful in the process.

So what, you’re a computer? You know, for all the effort to find one there has still been no clear dividing line established between the physical and the mental. Maybe one day we’ll be able to separate them and download your mind but even then it would still require some kind of machine platform to function. So would you, as such, be essentially different? Would that machine platform not be part of your essential being, playing the essential role that your body/brain currently plays?

Things can be made new. Impossible things can happen. Yet essential being can remain the same.

I think its possible to change what we ‘be’ or ‘are’ too. If say your DNA was changed massively.

Sure, but not if the objective is to conserve form as with an earthly mortality, or any preservation of self.

Good point! :slight_smile: Problem is that this idea is transcended when we consider the original being of the priest, his resurrection would necessarily include the farmers arm, as would the farmers. If however in the resurrection we all get new bodies in the form of the one we left this world with ~ a replica, then your position holds.
When you say Jesus was ‘more beautiful’ it seems to me that he was without body, but we could say he had a different kind of physicality, one that isn’t biological or at least not the way we are. …I think biology is very temporary in its design.

I don’t know, it all sounds like we end up with a different world and body, and as like how I’d envision an otherworld. Immortality for me requires not just a different world but a different universe or reality/realm ~ a perpetual one! This universe is so transient it has no features of eternity bar perhaps our minds/spirit.

No I am not a computer because currently they don’t think nor have consciousness, and I’d argue that they cannot and never will ~ even artificially made neural network which are essentially like our brains.
There you’ll find the dividing line! I have also made arguments on numerous threads for the absolute divisibility between mind and physicality.
If a walked into a machine and another me came out the other end, then it wouldn’t be me. Imagine if the old you still remained ~ to see the contrast.

Change A into B and you no longer have A.
.

I guess the question is: why would we want to undertake such a change? Is our human nature so bad?

I understand wanting to accomplish the miracle from death to life (my hope is in the resurrection of the dead), but not so much the change to entirely new life forms…

I don’t think it is essential that every original spec of dust be restored in the resurrection. What matters is that we are restored. (I’m constituted now by a completely different set of atoms than I was when I was born, yet I am the same person.) I also think it would be wrong to say that Jesus no longer has a physical body. Thomas proves that Jesus is still flesh and blood after the resurrection, no? But I also see the the possibility of a new body. A machine body for instance. Ultimately, the body is more beautiful with resurrection, but this leaves a lot of room. Is the body still biological? Or is it mechanical or something else altogether?

I probably give the biological more credit than you do!

Sure… But what you’re talking about here is a change in essential nature. From a leaf into a dog for instance. Or from water into wine. This kind of logic is at play in resurrection, but the resurrection formula is more A into B into A’, where A’ is still A, but simply more beautiful.

our spiritual human nature is greater than the universe [no offence to its creator], for me it’s a change into what we truly are, a shrugging off of the clay which embalms us.

I agree though for different reasons [I am happy to think of bodies as throwaway objects, although lives aren’t].
The philosophical point was that what things ‘are’ can be changed ~ potentially.

Another very good point! Really we are talking about the resurrection of self then, and whatever that requires to maintain its integrity. Personally I don’t think an organic body is required for that, and a machine one would be an abomination; our ‘reality’ is not the object of our being. We may end up replacing humans with soul-less artificial life-forms which mimic what humans are like yet are not human [they don’t have our reality].

How does Thomas prove that Jesus is still flesh and blood? Consider that everything we know is informational, if you replaced our memories with other informations we would perceive a different thing ~ or indeed a thing we expect to see. If Jesus was a soul-body, when you touch him we could be getting information about his being, which constitutes the same subjectively experienced thing as if he had an actual body. Everything you experience about yourself is mental [even if derived from sensory info]. This is why I think it is entirely possible that a thought body could be experienced in exactly the same way as our experience of a physical body.

Ok, and the above is more beautiful imho, flesh is dirty, when one has a spiritual OOB experience, the return to bodily form is akin to getting out of a bath and putting on tramps clothing.
Btw ‘more beautiful’ is not the same as A, something has changed even if we have the same essentiality. What’s the change here? For me it all points to heaven rather than earth.

_

Where I would glorify the flesh you would stress its dirtiness, as if this is a bad thing. You would emphasize the spiritual and the heavenly over the physical and the earthly.

This may be good sense, for a lot of bodies are filthy and dirty. A lot of souls have done terrible things and so are filthy. The soul itself is the union of dirt and spirit and so we are all dirty in a deeply original way.

But here is the thing: Of its filthiness our body (and soul) must certainly be cleansed. Regarding its dirtiness however our body (and soul) must be glorified. Not only because of the greatness of our maker but because of the greatness inherent in earth itself and our own greatness.

We are not to “shrug off the clay that embalms us” but rather we are to stand naked before God and reveal to God what clay, and the human being that the clay has become with God’s spirit, is capable of. Like Job we must call God to judge our worth.

Our dirtiness in this sense is to be affirmed just as our spiritualness is. It is our filthiness that is to be denied. The things that we have done or failed to do.

Finally, Thomas proves that Jesus is still flesh and blood by doubting and touching the resurrected Jesus’ wounds.

The dirt corresponds to memory which dies with the brain. I guess we just have very different kinds of spirituality, so I‘ll leave you to yours and consider it further.

This could be synthesised, certainly in my experience of spirit it feels slightly different but is equally as tactile as what we feel in the flesh. In fact I’d go so far as to say that when you touch someone 99% of what you feel is of the spirit not the body I.e. is subjective experience of the physical thus is mental/spiritual.

Again I don’t wish to make detriment to your religion, I am merely making contrasts to further my own. :slight_smile: