spoiler alert., question, the soul of a pica

PeterZ wrote:While you may be right, I have to wonder. If the soul is the province of God, why can't He imbue it into whatever appropriate vessel He chooses?

Furthermore, since The Bible is a document describing an expanding set of revelations from Genesis to the New Testament, can't we assume that God will incorporate man's decisions into His Plan?

If both statements are true, then a PICA with a soul is not theologically inconsistent with Christianity. Even two separate PICAs of one physically dead individual.

mustangman wrote:There also are no PICA's or AI's. I very much believe in the soul of a person. but my belief is for this world. trying to figure out if a soul could in fact inhabit a machine like a pica is entirely the realm of the author. If you believe in the concept of a soul that is eternal, what is a thousand years to wait to wake up in a pica. certainly not out of the bounds of possibility, but the split soul thing is something I have trouble with on an intellectual basis. theologically in the real world I don't believe it could happen. but the books are only real in our and the authors imagination so however he chooses to resolve this issue will be interesting. and I agree that I don't expect him to spell out that this soul split or is a new soul or there never was a soul etc. but I suspect there will be discussion and the archbishop will likely give his opinion on the subject as will others so we will be able to discern to a certain extent what the author believes happens in his universe.

mustangman wrote:I have tried not to put my own beliefs into my questions and answers because I was asking about the safehold universe not our universe, but you asked. I believe the soul is the spiritual embodiment of all we are. literal spirit children of our heavenly father. to divide or duplicate that is akin to cloning a person and brings up the same ethical problems associated with that. cloning a body for a new heart etc. I.E. in spiritual terms, a person who had a desire to rape and kill his neighbors wife can duplicate his soul in a new pica that pica then commits the crime and is executed, the original "soul" remains unstained except of course for the planning issue etc. but you can extrapolate by this simple example many more potential consequences of being able to duplicate your soul. I don't believe God would allow this to happen.

PeterZ wrote:While you may be right, I have to wonder. If the soul is the province of God, why can't He imbue it into whatever appropriate vessel He chooses?

Furthermore, since The Bible is a document describing an expanding set of revelations from Genesis to the New Testament, can't we assume that God will incorporate man's decisions into His Plan?

If both statements are true, then a PICA with a soul is not theologically inconsistent with Christianity. Even two separate PICAs of one physically dead individual.

pokermind wrote:My on thought is that God will endow the two PICAs with soul. If not I think both PICAs will believe they have souls basened on Maikal Stainair's discussion with Merlin in IIRC the second book BSRA.

Poker

n7axw wrote:
For me what matters is that Merlin and Nimue are people, persons who think, love, hate, are compssionate, laugh, mourn; in short, struggle with life like the rest of us.

The question of souls is difficult to dicuss since we all start out with our own notion of what a soul is and either accept or deny it on that basis. We're kinda like ships passing in the dark!

Don

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:
For me what matters is that Merlin and Nimue are people, persons who think, love, hate, are compssionate, laugh, mourn; in short, struggle with life like the rest of us.

The question of souls is difficult to dicuss since we all start out with our own notion of what a soul is and either accept or deny it on that basis. We're kinda like ships passing in the dark!

Don

Help me out here, Don. Isn't the bolded comments above an indication that such a being has a soul?

The illustration that best captures the distinction for me is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. It depicts Man as God's ultimate creation, above everything else. Above even the angels. It isn't man's physical being that transcends all the other created beings, but his soul. One might even wonder if angels have souls if man's soul surpasses even the angels. Certainly there is something lacking in angels that the fallen angels cannot be redeemed whereas fallen humanity can be.

So, I agree that those qualities are the important ones. So important that they reflect the Divine spark that is the soul. How am I wrong? Understand that I am not trying to pick a quarrel but am truly interested in your answer.

n7axw wrote:I am leaning toward the Hebrew understanding rather than the Greek. God breathes into man the breath of life and man becomes a living being---body, soul, and spirit. The term I am using for that unified package is person which, while I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, seems to me to commumicate this best to moderns.

The problem with the popular notion of soul is how the material, the body, is degraded. The Greeks believed that the body is lesser value, perhaps even evil. Thus rather than being something to be cherished is something to escape. Purity rested in the soul apart from the body. This sort of thinking penetrated the post-biblical church very quickly with influx of non-Jewish people into the church. So even in the present day you have the poplular notion of "dieing and going to heaven"(your disembodied soul, of course).

The Bible is much different. First of all in the Bible, ALL of creation is valued..."and God looked upon what he had made and saw that it was good." Without going into detail about the evolution of biblical belief, the New Testament seems to teach a two stage afterlife for believers. The first stage, perhaps borrowing from the Greeks somewhat, is "that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." The second and primary stage is the resurrection of the body. The vision offered here is that of the new heaven and the new earth, uncorrupted by sin and death where there will be no more crying and pain where the resurrected person will forever live in God's presense.

There! How about that for more explanation than you were looking for...we preacchers are wordy!

Don

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:I am leaning toward the Hebrew understanding rather than the Greek. God breathes into man the breath of life and man becomes a living being---body, soul, and spirit. The term I am using for that unified package is person which, while I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, seems to me to commumicate this best to moderns.

The problem with the popular notion of soul is how the material, the body, is degraded. The Greeks believed that the body is lesser value, perhaps even evil. Thus rather than being something to be cherished is something to escape. Purity rested in the soul apart from the body. This sort of thinking penetrated the post-biblical church very quickly with influx of non-Jewish people into the church. So even in the present day you have the poplular notion of "dieing and going to heaven"(your disembodied soul, of course).

The Bible is much different. First of all in the Bible, ALL of creation is valued..."and God looked upon what he had made and saw that it was good." Without going into detail about the evolution of biblical belief, the New Testament seems to teach a two stage afterlife for believers. The first stage, perhaps borrowing from the Greeks somewhat, is "that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." The second and primary stage is the resurrection of the body. The vision offered here is that of the new heaven and the new earth, uncorrupted by sin and death where there will be no more crying and pain where the resurrected person will forever live in God's presense.

There! How about that for more explanation than you were looking for...we preacchers are wordy!

Don

Thank you for the time you took to respond, Don. Each word is truly appreciated.

If I understand correctly, the life breathed into man by God is indivisble. To have life as a human is to experience personhood. It follows that the nature of life is qualitatively different in humans than it is in any other living being. Life isn't modular where the difference between a dog and a man is that the man has everything the dog has but also has extra modules. Furthermore, intelligence is also qualitiatively different in humans than in other thinking beings. Since intelligence is part of human personhood, it follows that human intelligence is also as unique as human life.

Is this a correct summation?