tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post110543347524236180..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: It is not good for a man to be aloneAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75774111446590745362015-05-20T08:22:33.979-05:002015-05-20T08:22:33.979-05:00Hi Dr Pruss. I have a Fifth Objection. The premise...Hi Dr Pruss. I have a Fifth Objection. The premise including the application of the biblical statement, "It is not good for man to be alone," suffers from radical eisegtical misapplication, namely, the fact that Gen. 2 was considering the benefits of the martial companionship of a man with a woman, and the "one flesh" sexual union that necessarily follows in consummating that union.<br /><br />So unless you think Jesus had celestial intercourse with his Mother, then you probably can't use that text in your argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-57079166572054279492008-09-13T09:29:00.000-05:002008-09-13T09:29:00.000-05:00I think so. But likely transformed in some way.I think so. But likely transformed in some way.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-69676458511545726452008-09-13T04:32:00.000-05:002008-09-13T04:32:00.000-05:00So Jesus retains in Heaven all those things about ...So Jesus retains in Heaven all those things about his human body that were <I>normal</I> (and perhaps some other things too)?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28165799460885347952008-09-12T10:30:00.000-05:002008-09-12T10:30:00.000-05:00Here, I was using "essential" in a non-modal, medi...Here, I was using "essential" in a non-modal, medieval sense. I should probably have used the word "normal". Glorification does not destroy what is normally human. Ears, etc. are normal for human beings.<BR/><BR/>And it is essential to human beings (in the modern, modal sense of "essential") that it be normal for them to have ears.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-88982995893503573182008-09-12T04:21:00.000-05:002008-09-12T04:21:00.000-05:00Glorification does not destroy what is essentially...<I>Glorification does not destroy what is essentially human. A glorified body, thus, has a mouth, eyes, ears, and all that.</I><BR/>Are ears essential to being human? One is surely not less than human if one lacks them. If you are right about the reproductive organs (as you surely are about the hair on our heads) then similarly we might outgrow ears, eyes and a mouth when we die. We see darkly through these sorts of eyes, for example, and might not need a mouth and ears if we became telepathic in the afterlife. Even the expressive job of eyes and mouth, which can be so deceptive, might be replaced, e.g. by something more like auras...<BR/><BR/><I>But some form of bodily interaction with other human beings—whether through talking or hugging or just looking in another's eyes—seems essential to a naturally fulfilling human life at just about all its mature (and maybe even immature) stages.</I><BR/>Some form of interaction for sure, but why not (for such as the aforementioned reasons) physical-bodily before death and spiritual-bodily afterwards. Hugging would only require that the spiritual body have some sort of boundary, within the spiritual realm, and something like an aura might have a cloudy boundary that allows interactions more intimate than the brushing together of hairy skin. And that could be complimented by holy communion, a physical-bodily interaction (similarly analogous to but superiour to hugging).<BR/><BR/>...also I wonder, why does your argument defend Mary's <I>assumption</I>, rather than that <I>something</I> like that was to be expected, e.g. maybe after dying normally she was (or will be) resurrected or recreated? It is more obvious (and it happens earlier) that men leave home (and their mothers) as they grow up, than that they leave sex behind. So it is only natural for Jesus to be waiting a relatively long time for Mary's arrival. Does the analogy not suggest that Mary might be expected to be helping with the children of the Church (alongside the angels perhaps), rather than keeping Jesus company?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com