Being Human? - Page 3

**tonyrey** · #31 May 15, '12, 4:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

So are you saying it wasn't necessary for him to be consubstantial with us?

I believe God could choose other ways to be consubstantial with us...

jimmy · #32 May 15, '12, 4:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

I believe God could choose other ways to be consubstantial with us...

And God could make a square circle.

You might as well deny that the Son was born from the Father, because that is the source of their consubstantiality. They aren't three gods because of their unity in the Father. Humanity is an image of god in this way. Just as the Father is the source of the Trinity, Adam and Eve are the source of humanity. It would be a different species if Christ were to have a nature that was created seperately from that of Adam and Eve, no matter how similar. Similarity isn't what creates union.

levinas12 · #33 May 15, '12, 7:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

It is irrelevant how distinct the current human genome is from other animals. The point is thatitgot there by steps. In biology there isn't any hard dividing line between species. Speciation occurs through many small steps. A new species is defined when the fitness of two populations when interbreeding is zero. In other words, when an individual from one population breeds with one from another; if they cant produce viable offspring (assuming neither is sterile and they could produce viable offspring within their own population) they are two species. It is about barriers to procreation.

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is "humans we can identify with". Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the "human difference"? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the "human difference" to happen?

As you can surmise, I don't think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between "us" and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

jimmy · #34 May 15, '12, 9:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by levinas12

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is "humans we can identify with". Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the "human difference"? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the "human difference" to happen?

As you can surmise, I don't think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between "us" and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

You still don't get it. You want to break it down so that you have animals on one hand and humans on the other. Evolution and biology do not do that. You want to say that the change was radical, but all the science says it wasn't.

I never said it was relatively recently. The changes are still occuring. They have been occuring for millions of years and will continue to occur. What are you talking about when did the interbreeding stop? The interbreeding stoped when there ceased to be a single population and multiple populations resulted. Are you even paying attention to what I say?

levinas12 · #35 May 16, '12, 6:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

You still don't get it. You want to break it down so that you have animals on one hand and humans on the other. Evolution and biology do not do that. You want to say that the change was radical, but all the science says it wasn't.

I never said it was relatively recently. The changes are still occuring. They have been occuring for millions of years and will continue to occur. What are you talking about when did the interbreeding stop? The interbreeding stoped when there ceased to be a single population and multiple populations resulted. Are you even paying attention to what I say?

I want to assure you that I have paid close attention.

It's just that I think there's a big difference between human beings and the other animals.

You seem to be blurring this difference.

As for the interbreeding ... I was thinking of the approximate time when the human genome, as we know it today, "stabilized" ... you say changes are occurring but it seems that the human genome has remained essentially unchanged for quite some time ...

levinas12 · #36 May 16, '12, 7:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

There's not a total rupture.

Let's just say that philosophy provides a deeper understanding of the phenomena described by biology and anthropology.

jimmy · #37 May 16, '12, 11:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by levinas12

I want to assure you that I have paid close attention.

It's just that I think there's a big difference between human beings and the other animals.

You seem to be blurring this difference.

As for the interbreeding ... I was thinking of the approximate time when the human genome, as we know it today, "stabilized" ... you say changes are occurring but it seems that the human genome has remained essentially unchanged for quite some time ...

Why do you say it has remained essentially unchanged? People are on average almost a foot taller than a couple thousand years ago. Other physical attributes have changed too.

I don't deny that there is a huge difference between humans and pother animals. Philosophy for one is a strictly human pursuit. I am simply explaining the biology

**grannymh** · #38 May 16, '12, 1:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by levinas12

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is "humans we can identify with". Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the "human difference"? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the "human difference" to happen?

As you can surmise, I don't think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between "us" and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

The philosophical definition of a human being would include human nature which is an unique union of the material (genes, etc.) anatomy and the spiritual (rational and will) soul. The human person is not two natures pasted together; rather their *union* is a single nature.

Natural science can study the material anatomy, but it cannot put the spiritual soul under its microscope. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature -- the human being one sees in the mirror.

levinas12 · #39 May 16, '12, 7:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

Why do you say it has remained essentially unchanged? People are on average almost a foot taller than a couple thousand years ago. Other physical attributes have changed too.

I don't deny that there is a huge difference between humans and pother animals. Philosophy for one is a strictly human pursuit. I am simply explaining the biology

The essence of what it means to be human has not changed.

You mention a change in height. As Aristotle would say, height is an accident, not part of the essence. So this change is not part of what defines the "human being" as such.

This distinction between essence and accident is a philosophical one but it is indispensable to biology. Without it, it would be impossible to classify living beings (or even distinguish between living and non-living beings).

You say there is a big difference between us and other animals. How would you describe this difference? And what kind of relationship exists between the human genome and this difference?

levinas12 · #40 May 16, '12, 7:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannymh

The philosophical definition of a human being would include human nature which is an unique union of the material (genes, etc.) anatomy and the spiritual (rational and will) soul. The human person is not two natures pasted together; rather their *union* is a single nature.

Natural science can study the material anatomy, but it cannot put the spiritual soul under its microscope. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature -- the human being one sees in the mirror.

The person is not metaphysically separate from the material body. I'm speaking from the perspective of nature. The person can exist separately from the body by a supernatural act on the part of God.

It's like a portrait painting. The person portrayed is not separate from the paint. The person is "in" the paint.

Or one could say, the paint "discloses" that person.

Or one could say, the person is the "meaning" of the paint.

But one could not say the person is ontically "other" than the paint.

Just like you cannot say that the portrait is ontically "other" than the paint. The paint is the portrait!

Charlemagne II · #41 May 16, '12, 8:59 pm

Biologically, the human brain is what separates us most from other creatures. We are not just different in degree, but in kind as well. No other mere animal could imagine God. No other mere animal could imagine life on other planets. No other mere animal could imagine a way to get to the moon and beyond. No other mere animal could invent science and discover its own genome.

levinas12 · #42 May 17, '12, 4:49 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by levinas12

The person is not metaphysically separate from the material body. I'm speaking from the perspective of nature. The person can exist separately from the body by a supernatural act on the part of God.

It's like a portrait painting. The person portrayed is not separate from the paint. The person is "in" the paint.

Or one could say, the paint "discloses" that person.

Or one could say, the person is the "meaning" of the paint.

But one could not say the person is ontically "other" than the paint.

Just like you cannot say that the portrait is ontically "other" than the paint. The paint is the portrait!

When I said that the person is not ontically other than the paint, I really meant that the "presence" of the person in the portrait is not ontically other than the paint. Of course, the actual flesh-and-blood person is indeed ontically other than the portrait and a fortiori ontically other than the paint.

The metaphor of portrait painting is meant to convey the idea that a person is an "expression" of a body. It's not as if there are two things conjoined together, a person and a body. The person and the body are one and the same; just like the portrait and the paint are one and the same.

This is why the resurrection of the body is necessary. A disembodied human person is "unnatural". Only a supernatural act by God can maintain us apart from our bodies.

Because "person" is a bodily expression, there is a connection between the human genome and "person".

levinas12 · #43 May 17, '12, 5:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

If it's not necessary to have ''human'' parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn't He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Such a good question. You are a natural born theologian.

As mentioned in my postings above, there is a connection between the human genome and person.

Jesus intended to be identified totally with us (save sin). Thus, He took on our DNA. If He simply popped into existence, with His own DNA, it wouldn't have been the same.

n.b. this does not mean that Adam and Eve simply dropped in out of nowhere. Their DNA was mostly continuous with previous DNA but there was also a discontinuity. You can call this discontinuity a "mutation" (or a series of "mutations"). But we believe that this
"mutation" was not random.

levinas12 · #44 May 17, '12, 11:09 am

An additional thought.

Jesus not only had our DNA, but, more specifically, the DNA of his ancestors.

This is why genealogies are so important in the Bible.

**tonyrey** · #45 May 17, '12, 11:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

Quote:

I believe God could choose other ways to be consubstantial with us...

And God could make a square circle.

You might as well deny that the Son was born from the Father, because that is the source of their consubstantiality. They aren't three gods because of their unity in the Father. Humanity is an image of god in this way. Just as the Father is the source of the Trinity, Adam and Eve are the source of humanity. It would be a different species if Christ were to have a nature that was created seperately from that of Adam and Eve, no matter how similar. Similarity isn't what creates union.

Divine consubstantiality is not in the same category.