RE: How and when did we become "men"?

From: Adrian Teo (ateo@whitworth.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 15:09:15 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: How and when did we become "men"?"

    Hello Mike,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:40 AM
    > To: asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: How and when did we become "men"?
    >
    > I have heard some say that our greater intellectual capacity,
    > permitting us
    > to have a relationship with God, is all that makes us
    > different from animals.
    > They have told me that all men do not all have eternal
    > spirits within them
    > which, unlike the spirits of animals, return to God who gave
    > them upon our
    > deaths. They say men only receive such "spirits" when we enter into a
    > relationship with God. If that is the case, then it seems to
    > me there is no
    > real difference between a mentally retarded human being and a
    > chimpanzee.

    I realize that this is not the view that you hold, but I wish to emphasize
    that such a view is totally misguided and even dangerous. When we try to
    define human persons in terms of their functional capacities, we will always
    find people who are lacking in some of these capacities, and hence, we will
    tend to view them as LESS than human. I feel strongly that as Christians, we
    should vigorously object to any functionalist view of the human person.
     
    > I realize this is now more of a discussion of theology than
    > science.

    No need for apology, because this is a science AND religion forum.

    > But I'd appreciate hearing your opinion, if you are willing
    > to give it, and
    > that of others here on the "how" of God's creation of the
    > human race prior to
    > Adam, whenever that may have been. Essentially, I guess I am
    > asking, how do
    > you believe carnal man differs from animals?

    In answer to the last question, I wish to reiterate that any functionalist
    view will not cut it. We cannot talk about the differences in intelligence,
    language, emotions, behavior, etc as defining characteristics. The human
    person is different from the non-human species in SUBSTANCE, not functions
    (although there are obvious differences in fucntional capacities in many
    cases). I adhere to a Thomistic understanding of dualism, and therefore,
    define a human person as BOTH body and soul. We are not human persons simply
    because of our body structures, but because we are embodied souls in the
    image of God. In simple terms, it is not that we can do more or better that
    makes us humans, but that we are of a different "kind."

    Blessings,

    Adrian.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 19 2002 - 15:10:42 EDT