Replies

A belief that Adam was the first mortal man leads to the conclusion of young earth creationism. A belief that he was the first ensouled man leads to the conclusion of either intelligent design or theistic evolution.

Alamo-Girl, thank you so much for your magnificent essay at #17! It was moreover such a splendid and profoundly meditated witness to the glory of the Lord. Thank you so very much!

It is so interesting that knowledge of man and knowledge of the world are so often interrelated and interdependent. Witness Plato's "man the microcosm."

WRT to the above italics: I guess we'd call this an instance of the "anthropological principle" at work. While many scientists take a dim view of any "anthropomorphism," I think it's silly to tsk-tsk the anthropological principle. For all the knowledge that exists of man, God, and the universe is human knowledge, in the sense that the human mind (exclusively [except for God, of course] as far as we know) is the knower of it. Why would anyone want to insist that man is so insignificant, unimportant, on the great scale of the physical universe that it cannot be said that the presence of homo sapiens sapiens and his activity in the cosmos is other than perfectly trivial, and of little importance?

Man may well be much more important to the evolution of the cosmos than we now realize. So if people believe it's silly that the YECs and IDers could construct theories about the origin of the universe based on the issue of "first-mortal" vs. "first-ensouled" -- well, maybe they could benefit from a little more modesty about what it is they think they know.

Fortunately, God sets more store by man then most men do! :^) We ought to be profoundly grateful for that, and love and honor the Lord as He wishes us to do.

Thank you so very much for all of your kind words! I had precious little to do with post 17, though. I prayed earnestly for His guidance and was drawn to those particular Scriptures around which I plugged a few connecting sentences, over which I prayed yet again. So in the end, it is no surprise that the collection is a "witness to the glory of the Lord":

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26

I certainly agree with you that there is more to man than meets the eye and his role in the cosmos is much more significant than we yet understand.

IMHO, it is instructive to consider how Paul reasoned with the Greeks in Athens with reference to man and his relationship with God.

The people in Athens had dismissed the wisdom of the great philosopher Plato and embraced the superstitions of their poets for their theology. Paul reasoned with them, correcting their error first by dismissing Aristotle’s view that there was no beginning, i.e. “everything always was what now it is.” He then went on to illustrate how their own poet's (Aratus) words which they embraced, would refute their concept of Who God is and what is man:

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead - Acts 17:22-31

Of course, science now affirms that there was a beginning. And even all the various theories of multi-verses, imaginary time and ekpyrotic cosmology still require a beginning. In itself, it is a strangely theological statement to have come from science (Interview with Robert Jastrow.)

betty boop, your reasoning with others concerning epistemology and ontology is very much like Paul’s IMHO. He was able to show the assertion of the poet as a rebuttal to itself. Kudos to you, my friend!