Physical bodies

[Menotu]

The bible says, well quite a lot. But specifically, it speaks of the human body being a temple but also not being, ultimately, not really necessary to get in to heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42"44)
So why does God care what we do with our bodies?
Why does he care if we get a bit fat? Or pierce this, tat that? Sleep with who or how many?
Christians even say that the physical church building isn't necessary (1 Cor. 3:16, Heb. 4:16) to get in to heaven or even have a relationship with God.
But people say, yes, indeed, God is concerned with our bodies and what we do to them (and what we do with them when it comes to others).
But is that God's concern at all? The bible is not a directly dictated autobiographical reference of the almighty. It's simply 'this guy said that guys said God said'.
So all the concern with our physical and so much less concern with the spiritual?
Is it because people are lazy and it's easier to tell someone what they can't do with their bodies than their souls?

[Diagoras]

Jesus, the first born among the dead, had a body after His resurrection and ascended in the body. But that body was also different. Time and space did not have a hold on him the way they did prior to his resurrection.

Have a hold? Is that the same as saying Jesus didnt obey the physical laws of the universe? If so, kindly provide some sort of cite to back that up.

For now at least we have a physical body, and everything that our physical body does effects our soul.

Some examples would be helpful. Perhaps a well-reputed medical source could corroborate your claim?

We cannot separate the physical from the spiritual.

Yes we can. One exists in this world, and one doesnt. Theyre about as separate as you can get.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The bible says, well quite a lot. But specifically, it speaks of the human body being a temple but also not being, ultimately, not really necessary to get in to heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42"44)
So why does God care what we do with our bodies?
Why does he care if we get a bit fat? Or pierce this, tat that? Sleep with who or how many?
Christians even say that the physical church building isn't necessary (1 Cor. 3:16, Heb. 4:16) to get in to heaven or even have a relationship with God.
But people say, yes, indeed, God is concerned with our bodies and what we do to them (and what we do with them when it comes to others).
But is that God's concern at all? The bible is not a directly dictated autobiographical reference of the almighty. It's simply 'this guy said that guys said God said'.
So all the concern with our physical and so much less concern with the spiritual?
Is it because people are lazy and it's easier to tell someone what they can't do with their bodies than their souls?

Our bodies are the image of God.. So disrespecting ones body is disrespecting the image of God..

I mean no offense to anyone, but this is not quite accurate.

Our bodies have sin (error) and death in them. Hence, we get sick and we die. How then can these bodies be the image of God? God does not have sin in Him; God does not die.



We are currently bearing the image of Adam (after Adam ate of the tree of knowing good/life and bad/death; after sin and death entered into him and into the world). We are being made into the image of Christ (who is Himself the image of God).


And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man (Adam), so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man (Christ). 1 Corinth 15:49





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Diagoras]

Our bodies have sin (error) and death in them. Hence, we get sick and we die.

Our bodies are made up of cells, which either naturally die through the well-understood process of apoptosis. Heres a sample article explaining it:

Apoptosis is one of the checks and balances built into the cell cycle. Normally when something goes wrong in a cell, it is quickly destroyed via apoptosis. This safeguard helps prevent the development of cancer. For example, when skin cells are damaged by ultraviolet radiation (i.e. sun, tanning beds) apoptosis is normally triggered. This helps eliminate any badly damaged cells. If apoptosis does not occur, these damaged cells may survive and develop into cancerous cells.

Your statement about our bodies having error in them can be thus easily explained through such natural processes and do not require the idea of sin or a god to properly understand and - importantly, in the case of cancer - treat more effectively.

How then can these bodies be the image of God? God does not have sin in Him; God does not die.

How can we be sure that God does not die? Friedrich Nietzsche claimed he was dead, and no-ones recorded a reliable sighting of God for over two thousand years. Legally, someones usually pronounced dead after twenty years.

Even if hes alive (and thats a debate all by itself), we only have his word that hell live forever. For all we know, hell end up in the same predicament as the great god, Om, and fade away to nothing as the number of his believers dwindle and eventually disappear altogether.

We are being made into the image of Christ (who is Himself the image of God).

Does Jesus look like God, then? And vice versa? How about all the other primates? Take a good look at some photos of a chimpanzees hand some time and decide whether or not it looks human (and therefore, Christlike) or not. More useful to understand how we came to look human through careful research such as this, than to rely on vague bible references.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Our bodies have sin (error) and death in them. Hence, we get sick and we die.

Our bodies are made up of cells, which either naturally die through the well-understood process of apoptosis. Heres a sample article explaining it:

Please note the key words from the following quote from your article:

"when something goes wrong in a cell"

Something going wrong is an error.

Less then perfect.

Just because it is 'natural' (everything in this world is subject to death) does not mean it is not an error. Something goes wrong - we get sick. Something goes wrong... we die. Sometimes the body's natural defenses to fight off a virus can cause us to die as well. It is an error; less than perfect.

Apoptosis is one of the checks and balances built into the cell cycle. Normally when something goes wrong in a cell, it is quickly destroyed via apoptosis. This safeguard helps prevent the development of cancer. For example, when skin cells are damaged by ultraviolet radiation (i.e. sun, tanning beds) apoptosis is normally triggered. This helps eliminate any badly damaged cells. If apoptosis does not occur, these damaged cells may survive and develop into cancerous cells.

**

Your statement about our bodies having error in them can be thus easily explained through such natural processes and do not require the idea of sin or a god to properly understand and - importantly, in the case of cancer - treat more effectively.

By sin in the flesh I am referring to error. So that error is not caused by sin; instead sin = error.

I assume (perhaps in error) that scientists and medical researchers examine what has gone 'wrong' during their research on how to treat illnesses.

How then can these bodies be the image of God? God does not have sin in Him; God does not die.

How can we be sure that God does not die? Friedrich Nietzsche claimed he was dead, and no-ones recorded a reliable sighting of God for over two thousand years. Legally, someones usually pronounced dead after twenty years.

I think that might be a misrepresentation of what Nietzsche meant, but even if not, who is Nietzsche to make this statement?

Regardless, the poster I am responding to ... is referring to a God who is not dead, at least as far as that poster (and others) believe. In addition to that, the OP is arguing as if God is alive as well (perhaps only for the sake of argument, but still).

Even if hes alive (and thats a debate all by itself), we only have his word that hell live forever. For all we know, hell end up in the same predicament as the great god, Om, and fade away to nothing as the number of his believers dwindle and eventually disappear altogether.

That is another discussion. My comments were relevant to the poster I was responding to (and some others).

We are being made into the image of Christ (who is Himself the image of God).

Does Jesus look like God, then? And vice versa? How about all the other primates? Take a good look at some photos of a chimpanzees hand some time and decide whether or not it looks human (and therefore, Christlike) or not. More useful to understand how we came to look human through careful research such as this, than to rely on vague bible references.

When Christ was on the earth, He had the same form as us (as Adam), as to His flesh.


It was not His flesh and blood that was the image of God, but rather, He, Himself - the person He truly is (regardless of His appearance). His words were not His own but were from His Father; His deeds were as His Father taught Him, etc. He showed us WHO the Father is (and who we are is not determined by what we look like).

"If you had known me, you would know my Father as well."





Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 14 by tam]

Youre being pretty clear that youre equating an error (something going wrong in a cell) with sin. This isnt a particularly useful way to understand natural processes in this instance, as its hard to claim that the millions of cells in your stomach lining (for example) that die and are replaced every day were somehow sinning against God.

Ive heard a very wise person say, The key to understanding is to call things by their proper name. So in order to better understand the natural processes of growth, disease and death, its generally more profitable to stay away from terms like sin which just confuse the issue needlessly.

As to God not dead - happy to agree that the subject deserves its own thread if you like, rather than derailing this debate.

Re: your last point, about forms and appearances. Wasnt Adam made in Gods image though? Again, there seems to be some subtle false equivalence going on here, with image being used as both looks like in a physical sense, as well as a sort of inner nature sense. Some theists in this thread seem to be using image in its physical sense when comparing human bodies to God. We know God is described in the Old Testament in a very humanlike way (with hands and a face, walking about, etc). It seems that you disagree with that view, but it would be helpful if you could spell it out more clearly.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 14 by tam]

Youre being pretty clear that youre equating an error (something going wrong in a cell) with sin. This isnt a particularly useful way to understand natural processes in this instance, as its hard to claim that the millions of cells in your stomach lining (for example) that die and are replaced every day were somehow sinning against God.

I would not phrase it that way ('sinning against God'). The flesh simply has sin (error; wrong) in it.

Ive heard a very wise person say, The key to understanding is to call things by their proper name. So in order to better understand the natural processes of growth, disease and death, its generally more profitable to stay away from terms like sin which just confuse the issue needlessly.

I am using a proper word, just not a (current) scientific word. But I don't think the connection is that difficult to make, is it? Unfamiliar perhaps, but not too difficult to understand?

As to God not dead - happy to agree that the subject deserves its own thread if you like, rather than derailing this debate.

Might I ask what our common ground would be in that discussion? As in, what common ground would we draw our understanding from, so as to be able to have a meaningful discussion?

I can give evidence (testimony, reasoning, experience of God and His Son, etc), but I cannot give scientific proof (modern science does not yet have the means to examine the spiritual, as far as I know.) I'm certainly open for that discussion, but I don't know how it could be a debate without some kind of common ground to draw upon.

Re: your last point, about forms and appearances. Wasnt Adam made in Gods image though?

Man (Adam and Eve) was, yes. But before the "fall", before sin and death entered into them. The rest of us came after that - we are in the image of Adam (but after the "fall").


When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.


(thanks to Checkpoint for pointing this verse out as some support, from another thread)

Again, there seems to be some subtle false equivalence going on here, with image being used as both looks like in a physical sense, as well as a sort of inner nature sense. Some theists in this thread seem to be using image in its physical sense when comparing human bodies to God. We know God is described in the Old Testament in a very humanlike way (with hands and a face, walking about, etc). It seems that you disagree with that view, but it would be helpful if you could spell it out more clearly.

I'm not sure where the confusion has come in, but I will try to be more clear.

Our bodies are not the image of God in appearance (God does not look like us - even though He is described as having a face, hands, legs, etc. If you are a Star Trek fan, you can see that most humanoids share those characteristics, but look very different <- that is just an example of how different things can look despite sharing the characteristics of face, eyes, bodies, legs, hands, etc).

In addition to appearance, our bodies have sin and death in them (God does not < - whether you agree or disagree with that; this would be a major difference. How can an object that has sin and death in it, be the image of an object that has no sin or death in it?) THIS was the point I raised in this thread.


Then there is the 'inner person' that you mention here: one cannot look at man and see WHO God is, because man does not speak and act just/exactly as God speaks and acts. (though we can emulate some of God: if we are showing love, mercy, etc; and if we love also our enemies, as Christ said to do) One can, however, look at Christ and see God just as God is, because Christ is as God is. God is as Christ reveals Him to be. Christ is the truth of God.




I hope that helps, at least somewhat.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bjs]

[Replying to Diagoras]

I started with, Christianity has always said I explained what Christians believe, not attempted to prove it true. If you know some fault in the reasoning or have evidence that something else is more likely true, very well. Lacking that I have said all need to on this thread.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Diagoras]

I started with, Christianity has always said I explained what Christians believe, not attempted to prove it true. If you know some fault in the reasoning or have evidence that something else is more likely true, very well. Lacking that I have said all need to on this thread.

Your complete sentence was, "Christianity has always said that people are both physical and spiritual creatures." Diagoras didn't ask you to support this claim. It is as you have said nothing but a claim about what Christians believe.

Diagoras asked you to support the claims you made later. The first was the paragraph that started with this sentence, "Jesus, the first born among the dead, had a body after His resurrection and ascended in the body."

The second was the paragraph that started with this sentence, "For now at least we have a physical body, and everything that our physical body does effects our soul."

These are both claims of fact not simply statements of what Christians believe. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence to support claims of fact. At this point, these claims remain unsupported.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 1 ]

Menotu: The bible says, well quite a lot. But specifically, it speaks of the human body being a temple but also not being, ultimately, not really necessary to get in to heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42"44)
So why does God care what we do with our bodies?

William: The bible does say quite a lot, yes.
Therein the Biblical Jesus reports that 'Flesh is flesh - spirit is spirit' - and the next experience is less the flesh.

Where does the human mind fit into the equation? The flesh or the spirit? Perhaps a bridging mechanism between the two realms.

Menotu: Why does he care if we get a bit fat? Or pierce this, tat that? Sleep with who or how many?

William: From the stories, it only appears that the OT part of the bible - god YHVH becomes concerned when the indwelling spirits focus are only on the flesh, and in large enough numbers to make a significant negative impact upon the reality the spirits are involved within.

The form of the human being seems less of interest to this god, than the spirit which indwells said form.

Menotu: Christians even say that the physical church building isn't necessary (1 Cor. 3:16, Heb. 4:16) to get in to heaven or even have a relationship with God.

William: As a Christian, I also say that the Bible isn't even necessary.
Devices of such nature are only 'handy' accompaniments and it is wise not to depend upon them as necessary to the purpose. One should always be able to reach a point where one manages to maintain their spiritual journey - in the case of Jesus - Connection with The Father/The Fathers Realm, without the aid of such medium devices.

Be they sacrificial unblemished lambs, pamphlets, images, words, sock-puppets et al...

[Diagoras]

Youre being pretty clear that youre equating an error (something going wrong in a cell) with sin. This isnt a particularly useful way to understand natural processes in this instance, as its hard to claim that the millions of cells in your stomach lining (for example) that die and are replaced every day were somehow sinning against God.

I would not phrase it that way ('sinning against God'). The flesh simply has sin (error; wrong) in it.

Here's your original quote:

Our bodies have sin (error) and death in them. Hence, we get sick and we die.

You're basing your conclusion ("we get sick and die") on the premise that our bodies have 'something' wrong with them. This is an evidence-based argument if you use a term like 'cell mutation' or 'error', but when you insist on using a non-scientific term like 'sin', then it renders the same conclusion valueless. No medical textbook will use 'sin' in place of apoptosis or mutation, and there's good reason for that. Precise language leads to understanding. Wishy-washy language leads to superstition.

I am using a proper word, just not a (current) scientific word. But I don't think the connection is that difficult to make, is it? Unfamiliar perhaps, but not too difficult to understand?

Same deal. I can understand what you are meaning, but not why you would choose to avoid more precise language.

As to God not dead - happy to agree that the subject deserves its own thread if you like, rather than derailing this debate.

Re: debate - nothing springs to mind, so happy to leave it off the table for now.

But before the "fall", before sin and death entered into them. The rest of us came after that - we are in the image of Adam (but after the "fall").

Ah, yes - the "fall". I was never convinced by that tale. There's a well-thought out essay called That Fateful Apple which asks some tough questions about Adam and Eve's "fall", as well as a related essay called Sins of the Father that you might consider looking at.

In addition to appearance, our bodies have sin and death in them (God does not < - whether you agree or disagree with that; this would be a major difference. How can an object that has sin and death in it, be the image of an object that has no sin or death in it?) THIS was the point I raised in this thread.

The image, or in the image? Can't one be an imperfect image?

Then there is the 'inner person' that you mention here: one cannot look at man and see WHO God is, because man does not speak and act just/exactly as God speaks and acts.

This at least is pretty much what I'd think too.

though we can emulate some of God

We can all try to be good, in other words.

One can, however, look at Christ and see God just as God is

In what sense 'look'? To me, it seems as if you're asking me to compare one imaginary being with another imaginary being.