|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A receptacle of life
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Is life inherent in living things or not?
My understanding is that it is not, but that all living things merely receive life from its Source. This life is uniform in its origin, but is received differently by each living thing according to its form.
The same is true of all things that exist, whether they live or not. The origin and maintenance of their existence is from God. If the "flow" of being from Him were to stop, all things would disappear.
So life and existence are not the inherent properties of the animal, vegetable and mineral contents of the universe, but instead flow into them from God. There is therefore no pure autonomy, but only relative autonomy.
I assume that this is traditional biblical Christian teaching. Is it?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Traditional Christian teaching, of course, holds that "the animal, vegetable and mineral contents of the universe" are all created by God, so the dichotomy that you seem to propose would have no meaning. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
[ETA: you may know the old joke of the scientist who claimed to have created life. God called the scientist before Him and demanded a demonstration. The scientist began, "First, take some dirt," at which point the Almighty interrupted him -- "Wait a minute. Get your own dirt."]
[ 28. August 2012, 15:27: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My understanding is that it is not, but that all living things merely receive life from its Source. This life is uniform in its origin, but is received differently by each living thing according to its form.
The same is true of all things that exist, whether they live or not. The origin and maintenance of their existence is from God. If the "flow" of being from Him were to stop, all things would disappear.
Is there any way to put this "understanding" to the test? And does the inverse necessarily apply? For example, does picking a flower cut it off from [insert deity here]?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
so the dichotomy that you seem to propose would have no meaning.
What dichotomy?
Do you mean the dichotomy between the created thing and the life that flows into it?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MattStemp
Apprentice
# 17283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is life inherent in living things or not?
My understanding is that it is not, but that all living things merely receive life from its Source. This life is uniform in its origin, but is received differently by each living thing according to its form.
The same is true of all things that exist, whether they live or not. The origin and maintenance of their existence is from God. If the "flow" of being from Him were to stop, all things would disappear.
So life and existence are not the inherent properties of the animal, vegetable and mineral contents of the universe, but instead flow into them from God. There is therefore no pure autonomy, but only relative autonomy.
I assume that this is traditional biblical Christian teaching. Is it?
Pretty much, but the devil's in the details. What I understand you to be saying is that living things (as with all other things in the created order) are contingent beings (as opposed to necessary beings), whose existence and nature depend (in some way) on God's creating and sustaining action. Is that what you meant?
[ 28. August 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: MattStemp ]
Posts: 5 | From: Basingstoke, UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any way to put this "understanding" to the test? And does the inverse necessarily apply? For example, does picking a flower cut it off from [insert deity here]?
No. Things can't be "cut off" from God.
For that matter, God can't be absent either, since He is omnipresent. What we call His "presence" or "absence" is all about His relative visibility or our own state of awareness.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any way to put this "understanding" to the test? And does the inverse necessarily apply? For example, does picking a flower cut it off from [insert deity here]?
No. Things can't be "cut off" from God.
For that matter, God can't be absent either, since He is omnipresent. What we call His "presence" or "absence" is all about His relative visibility or our own state of awareness.
That doesn't seem to follow from your premises. For example, during the process of butchering a hog the butcher presumably isn't changing God or the underlying structure of the Universe but simply rearranging the various anatomical pieces of the pig, and yet doing so changes the hog from living to dead.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MattStemp:
What I understand you to be saying is that living things (as with all other things in the created order) are contingent beings (as opposed to necessary beings), whose existence and nature depend (in some way) on God's creating and sustaining action. Is that what you meant?
This is just what I want to know. I've never heard of the concept of "necessary" and "contingent" beings.
I would guess that God is the only "necessary" being, and that all other things exist from Him and depend on Him for their moment-to-moment existence.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
By your definitions, Freddy, since we derive all our being (not just our life) from God, NOTHING is an inherent property of created beings. And a predicate without instantiation (or whose instantiation is universal) is meaningless.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, during the process of butchering a hog the butcher presumably isn't changing God or the underlying structure of the Universe but simply rearranging the various anatomical pieces of the pig, and yet doing so changes the hog from living to dead.
Good point. The hog does, however, continue to exist. It doesn't disappear when we kill it.
So I am making a distinction between the divine influx that enables existence, and the flow of life into the things that exist that enables some things to live and others not to live.
In that system the flow of life is contingent on the state of the thing that receives that life. So the effect of the life that flows into a pig is different than that life received by a butterfly - and yet it is the same life that flows in.
This also means that if anything goes wrong the life can immediately stop being received. Such as when the pig is butchered. The life is still there, flowing from God, but the pig can no longer receive it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would guess that God is the only "necessary" being, and that all other things exist from Him and depend on Him for their moment-to-moment existence.
Well, all other things except Steve.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MattStemp
Apprentice
# 17283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would guess that God is the only "necessary" being, and that all other things exist from Him and depend on Him for their moment-to-moment existence.
Yes, that would be the traditional view, though it's important to express it clearly: what exactly does "existing from Him" mean? This is why terms like 'contingent' and 'necessary' are helpful.
Posts: 5 | From: Basingstoke, UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By your definitions, Freddy, since we derive all our being (not just our life) from God, NOTHING is an inherent property of created beings. And a predicate without instantiation (or whose instantiation is universal) is meaningless.
This is why I'm asking the question. What is the alternative idea?
It seems to me that Christianity does teach, though, that everything is from God and nothing is inherent in what is created. But this is what I am asking.
I guess the alternative is that things are created with certain inherent properties, and those properties do inhere as opposed to flow in.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It seems to me that the religious position ventures into the realm of science, and is not competent to argue the position without attention to facts, data and theory from a science perspective.
Some molecules, like viruses appear to be alive in terms of ability to self replicate, but do not appear alive outside of conditions necessary for that to occur, for example. They are essentially 'dead' if not in a living host. Thus, some things seem to violate our sense of what defines life. There is the same problem with defining an individual organism versus colony of individuals, and determining what sex an animal or plant is, because some are both and some change back and forth.
Thus, it seems to me, that we cannot talk of a receptacle of life if we do not define what 'life' actually is. And our wish to have clarity is messed up by there not being available clear definitions within the world. All assumptions are in danger of violation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Thus, it seems to me, that we cannot talk of a receptacle of life if we do not define what 'life' actually is.
Does it matter what life is?
If what goes forth from God animates some things but does not animate everything, and if everything that might be called "living" is living in a different way, it isn't a category that needs to be religiously defined. The definition is the domain of science.
The religious question is whether life is inherent or received. From the point of view of science it makes no difference.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As an adherent of the idea of non-overlapping magisteria à la Stephen Jay Gould, I would say: if you are taking "life" to be some sort of divine whatsit that God keeps in us while we're alive and takes away when we die, then this is a matter of faith and untestable.
If on the other hand life is a physical property or process that is detectable and testable, then it is in the realm of science and not a question about God at all.
It seems to me that the term "inherent" is not being used scientifically at all; I don't know that that concept is part of any current scientific theories of biology. As such it is strictly a theological question and only answerable on the basis of faith, stemming one supposes from one's interpretation of scripture.
For my own part I'm not sure that the distinction between "inherent" or "contingent" properties are called out in, or supported by, scripture at all. But of course I am no expert!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I see this with animals and people, once dead the 'life' goes out of them for sure. It doesn't happen so obviously with plants, the change from living to dead seems to be more gradual.
But I agree with your OP and have no alternative explanation.
In fact the only answer I can come up with for the 'why?' of life is God.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As an adherent of the idea of non-overlapping magisteria à la Stephen Jay Gould, I would say: if you are taking "life" to be some sort of divine whatsit that God keeps in us while we're alive and takes away when we die, then this is a matter of faith and untestable.
I like that: "some sort of divine whatsit." States it nicely.
However, the point is that God never takes it away. It is always present just as God is always present. But when the conditions of the receiving entity no longer support its reception it is as if it goes away, and the thing dies.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If on the other hand life is a physical property or process that is detectable and testable, then it is in the realm of science and not a question about God at all.
Science studies what is evident. So the processes are observed and described, conclusions are reached, things are manipulated.
The God part is "what is it?" What makes the atoms move?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that the term "inherent" is not being used scientifically at all; I don't know that that concept is part of any current scientific theories of biology. As such it is strictly a theological question and only answerable on the basis of faith, stemming one supposes from one's interpretation of scripture.
Yes, the word "inherent" is not meant scientifically. As far as science is concerned life is simply a property of living things.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For my own part I'm not sure that the distinction between "inherent" or "contingent" properties are called out in, or supported by, scripture at all. But of course I am no expert!
This is my question. Is this idea supported by Scripture?
I have understood that this is what is meant by passages such as these:
quote:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Psalm 36:9 For with You is the fountain of life;
John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life."
In these passages God is life itself, and all living things receive life from Him. I think that most Christians share this idea, but I'm trying to understand how it is usually understood.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
The Gospel of John teachs that all things were created by the Living Word; without him, nothing was created. The word became flesh, and lived among us as Jesus Christ, who died on a cross and remained dead for 3 days.
So, Freddy, based on your stated assumption of Christianity's teaching, would that teaching not require a belief that all creation ceased to exist for those 3 days?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It appears that life presently occurs on the basis of development of characteristics suited to particular environments, whatever the exact mechanism for the big bang and the initial start of life. Mouse Thief's reference to Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA principle (non overlapping majesteria) is a good one.
God appears to have given the universe a push to get going, and then, so it appears, natural processes that follow molecular and mechanistic rules seem to follow their natures.
It is comforting to consider that life is identified with God, but God puts scant evidence of God's involvement in the running of natural processes (and within human lives for that matter), hence we talk of faith. There is no argumentation I feel that can take us beyond such ideas of beauty into truth.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The God part is "what is it?" What makes the atoms move?
Kinetic energy?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
So, Freddy, based on your stated assumption of Christianity's teaching, would that teaching not require a belief that all creation ceased to exist for those 3 days?
No. My assumption is that Jesus is God Himself, that this is also meant by "the Word", and that during those three days He was not actually dead.
Otherwise, yes, all creation would have disappeared for three days. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
So, you believe that Christianity teachs that Jesus did not really die on the cross?
And just who did he pray to in the Garden of Gethsemane?
For that matter, at Jesus' baptism, as he rose from the water and a voice proclaimed "This is my beloved Son," did Jesus' lips move?
What an interesting and informative view of christianity you offer us!
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
So, you believe that Christianity teachs that Jesus did not really die on the cross?
Jesus' body died on the cross. Then it was resurrected. Meanwhile Jesus Himself went down into Hell and harrowed it.
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
And just who did he pray to in the Garden of Gethsemane?
He prayed to the Father.
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
For that matter, at Jesus' baptism, as he rose from the water and a voice proclaimed "This is my beloved Son," did Jesus' lips move?
No, that was the Father.
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
What an interesting and informative view of christianity you offer us!
Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus is still God.
My answer about creation not ceasing to exist for three days does not mean that Jesus was not God, or that the crucifixion and resurrection accounts are not true. I don't think that any Christians think that Jesus truly died as to His spirit. It was the body that died and was resurrected.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MattStemp
Apprentice
# 17283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
So, you believe that Christianity teachs that Jesus did not really die on the cross?
Jesus' body died on the cross. Then it was resurrected. Meanwhile Jesus Himself went down into Hell and harrowed it.
Yet Paul said "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." not "For since we believe that Jesus' body died and rose again..." (1 Thess 4:10). Funny that.
[ 28. August 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: MattStemp ]
Posts: 5 | From: Basingstoke, UK | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MattStemp:
Yet Paul said "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." not "For since we believe that Jesus' body died and rose again..." (1 Thess 4:10). Funny that.
Same difference.
We say that people "die" but Christianity clearly teaches that the real person continues to live - either in heaven or hell as most believe, or "sleeping" until their resurrection on the last day, as the church teaches.
Anyway, that's not the topic here. The world clearly didn't disappear when Jesus was crucified, and I don't think that anyone thinks that this means He wasn't divine. Are you saying that this point bears on the idea that all life proceeds from God and is received by living beings?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
The harrowing of hell is not in any way supported by Scripture; as a Calvinist; I hold no such theology. However, if the harrowing of hell is something your theology stands in support of, are you saying the souls residing there prior to the crucifixion were also souls of people who had never died?
Nasty, then, the buggers who had buried them!
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
The harrowing of hell is not in any way supported by Scripture; as a Calvinist; I hold no such theology. However, if the harrowing of hell is something your theology stands in support of, are you saying the souls residing there prior to the crucifixion were also souls of people who had never died?
Nasty, then, the buggers who had buried them!
Wow. Maybe we should have a thread about what "death" is.
The harrowing of hell is a common enough Christian dotrine. Your theology may not support it, but it has some, albeit somewhat weak, support in Scripture, not to mention credal citation. My point is not about the particular doctrine, but that ideas like it, or Jesus' statement to the thief, are meaningless if "death" means complete extinction.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume that this is traditional biblical Christian teaching. Is it?
"My point is not about the particular doctrine" either; it is about your appearing to be open-minded by asking the above question in your OP, then including theories not embraced by 'traditional biblical doctrine' in your assertions throughout the thread, while apparently rejecting Christian teachings which somehow fail to dovetail with your own very interesting set of theologies.
(The 'credal statement' "he descended into hell" is seen in my faith tradition as a relatively recent English language misinterpretation of the Latin "He descended to the dead" meaning simply "he died" but that is a side issue.)
[ 29. August 2012, 00:35: Message edited by: Loquacious beachcomber ]
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume that this is traditional biblical Christian teaching. Is it?
"My point is not about the particular doctrine" either; it is about your appearing to be open-minded by asking the above question in your OP, then including theories not embraced by 'traditional biblical doctrine' in your assertions throughout the thread, while apparently rejecting Christian teachings which somehow fail to dovetail with your own very interesting set of theologies.
Guilty as charged. Do you have problem with this?
So what is your opinion about whether life is inherent in living things, as opposed to flowing in, moment to moment, from God?
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
(The 'credal statement' "he descended into hell" is seen in my faith tradition as a relatively recent English language misinterpretation of the Latin "He descended to the dead" meaning simply "he died" but that is a side issue.)
What is your faith tradition? According to Wikipedia, which of course is not necessarily reliable, Calvinists accept the idea of the harrowing of hell.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I lean towards the idea that everything is alive in some way, both macrocosm ("as above,...") and microcosm ("...so below."). People, animals, rivers, trees, streams, mountains, atoms and all their constituents (through possibly infinite levels, and possibly looping around to the macrocosm), our species as a whole, stars, etc. etc. etc. As we're made up of lots of small things, I sometimes wonder if we make up something larger.
I tend to be a panentheist--God is both in Creation and transcends it. But there are other possibilities.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God appears to have given the universe a push to get going, and then, so it appears, natural processes that follow molecular and mechanistic rules seem to follow their natures.
Very interesting.
From this and other posts it seems that the idea of God as being intimately involved in creation, the source of life and being that flows moment-to-moment into all things, may not be the most common one.
So maybe the most common idea is that the created universe is like a clock that, having been wound up, runs by itself.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
The harrowing of hell is not in any way supported by Scripture; as a Calvinist; I hold no such theology.
How do you interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20?
I have always assumed that the "spirits in prison" were in hell.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
The harrowing of hell is not in any way supported by Scripture; as a Calvinist; I hold no such theology.
How do you interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20?
I have always assumed that the "spirits in prison" were in hell.
Me too. There is a host of other passages that also fit that idea:
quote:
Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to [those who are] bound;
Isaiah 42:4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; …7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
Zechariah 9.11 " As for you also, Because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
Psalm 68.6, 18 “God brings out those which are bound with fetters...When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious—that you, O LORD God, might dwell there."
Psalm 79.11 “Let the groaning of the bound come before you. ”
Psalm 102.20 “To hear the groaning of the bound, to open to the sons of death.”
Psalm 146.7 “Jehovah who looses the bound. ”
Ezekiel 26.20 “When I cause you to go down with those going down to the pit, to the people of old, and I cause you to dwell in the land of the lower ones, in the desolations from of old, so that you do not dwell with those going down to the pit, I will give beauty in the land of the living.”
Revelation 6.9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.
Acts 2.24 Jesus of Nazareth, whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him: “For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption” ( Psalm 16.10). …He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
I Peter 3.18 For Christ also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient.
I Peter 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
As we have seen, there are other ways to explain these passages, but the "harrowing of hell" is one way, which explains its mention in the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds:
quote:
Apostles Creed: "4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again."
Athanasian Creed: "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty."
But this is a tangent, and it has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
Okay, Freddy, I have to ask, before going further along this thread; is there a dead horse in the background here?
Is your all life is constnatly flowing from God's being talk an embracing of a hidden "therefore, all life begins at the moment of conception, and it opposes God's will to intervene in it?"
Because if there is a dead horse here, my attempts to discuss any other theologies that may arise here will be pointless.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
No. Scout's honor. No dead horses. I hadn't even thought of that issue.
My question is because someone asserted to me recently that most Christians don't think of life as something that is being constantly received from God, but as something built into nature.
I'm just wondering if that is true, because I would expect that most Christians would think in terms of God being the only source of life, which He imparts moment-to-moment to living things.
But now I'm thinking that he was right.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Op. Does this mean that when ever anyone dies God is actively cutting off their life force? A bit like Atropos cutting the thread?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Op. Does this mean that when ever anyone dies God is actively cutting off their life force? A bit like Atropos cutting the thread?
No, God never cuts off the life force. He is always present.
Rather, when the conditions no longer exist to support life then the person, animal, or plant is no longer able to receive that life, and dies.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but I want to mention something else.
The situation of God and creation is similar to that of the sun with the earth. The sun is a relatively constant source of energy, but the way that things on the earth are affected by the sun varies a great deal.
Without the sun all life would come to an end, but that doesn't mean that the sun's effect on all living things is the same. Living things take advantage of the energy that comes from the sun in different ways, and adapt themselves to make use of what it provides.
When something dies, however, it usually has nothing to do with the sun. Rather, for one reason or another the person or thing can no longer make use of the sources of energy that usually sustain life.
There are many biblical comparisons between God and the sun:
quote:
Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD will give grace and glory,
Malachi 4:2 But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings.
Matthew 17:2 He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun.
Revelation 1:16 His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.
And of course many peoples have worshiped the sun.
Maybe this is obvious, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the scientific definition of life is the ability to take nourishment and the ability to reproduce. Thus, a rock is not alive; a microbe is.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the scientific definition of life is the ability to take nourishment and the ability to reproduce. Thus, a rock is not alive; a microbe is.
Makes sense to me.
I would also go beyond this and say that God's continual presence not only enables life, but existence itself. So His presence is not only necessary for living things, but for all things. Without continual influx from Him all matter would disappear.
All of this is important when it comes to understanding the nature of God's presence in creation. God gave creation the quality of independence and autonomy. But how does something that is autonomous sustain itself? The only two options are that it is self-sustaining, or it is sustained by a connection to a source. The way that we resolve that question has significant ramifications.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the scientific definition of life is the ability to take nourishment and the ability to reproduce. Thus, a rock is not alive; a microbe is.
But when minerals are ingested and subsumed into the body of living entities, they become alive themselves. Wouldn't that suggest that life is a latent condition of seemingly lifeless matter, made manifest by appropriate conditions?
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
But when minerals are ingested and subsumed into the body of living entities, they become alive themselves. Wouldn't that suggest that life is a latent condition of seemingly lifeless matter, made manifest by appropriate conditions?
The minerals themselves do not become alive even when they are part of a living entity.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
But when minerals are ingested and subsumed into the body of living entities, they become alive themselves. Wouldn't that suggest that life is a latent condition of seemingly lifeless matter, made manifest by appropriate conditions?
Yes, that's one explanation.
Another is that when conditions are appropriate physical forms receive life from God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I'm wondering about the in-and-out life of things like transplanted organs or eggs / sperm. A person can die, but parts of them are still alive and can continue living in a new "receptacle". ;-) Ditto with sex cells. Thoughts?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You need to read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. About a woman whose cancerous cells were cultured around 1950 and still live on. Although it maybe doesn't so much answer your question as explore it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
But when minerals are ingested and subsumed into the body of living entities, they become alive themselves. Wouldn't that suggest that life is a latent condition of seemingly lifeless matter, made manifest by appropriate conditions?
Yes, that's one explanation.
Another is that when conditions are appropriate physical forms receive life from God.
But in living entities, life itself is the only constant factor. Their physical aspects are merely temporary unions of organic cells, formed out of inorganic elements; a constantly shifting mass of stuff being formed, regenerated, flushed out, replaced. So there is no consistent entity to which life may be 'given'.
ISTM that you are also implying that life is in some way a 'thing', separate to its form, which can be given and taken away, as if in a Cartesian dualistic context, rather than a condition of being. Do you really consider the model of Genesis 2:7 to be literally true - of all life forms?
I do find it odd that Christians so often talk about God having 'given' us life (and often accompanied by an enjoinder to be grateful to Him for doing so). Before or without this supposed gift, there was no 'us' available to receive it - just heap of non-living, non-conscious dust, as Genesis would have us believe.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Another is that when conditions are appropriate physical forms receive life from God.
But in living entities, life itself is the only constant factor. Their physical aspects are merely temporary unions of organic cells, formed out of inorganic elements; a constantly shifting mass of stuff being formed, regenerated, flushed out, replaced. So there is no consistent entity to which life may be 'given'.
In those terms it makes no difference whether "life" is some property of the way these inorganic elements are organized, or whether it flows in from some other source when this happens. Either way it would look the same.
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
ISTM that you are also implying that life is in some way a 'thing', separate to its form, which can be given and taken away, as if in a Cartesian dualistic context, rather than a condition of being. Do you really consider the model of Genesis 2:7 to be literally true - of all life forms?
Yes. No one knows what "life" is anyway.
Yes, I see it in a dualistic context. Life is a spiritual property that is imparted from the spiritual realm when the conditions are right. It ceases to be received when conditions no longer sustain it.
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I do find it odd that Christians so often talk about God having 'given' us life (and often accompanied by an enjoinder to be grateful to Him for doing so). Before or without this supposed gift, there was no 'us' available to receive it - just heap of non-living, non-conscious dust, as Genesis would have us believe.
True. Before there were living things there were non-living things, but no "us" to receive life.
However if we see life as something that is imparted moment-to-moment from God then there is an "us" to receive it.
[ 03. September 2012, 01:04: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
