Resurrection and Duplication

[Brickjectivity]

Physical change can change us as humans, that is plain from the amygdala etc . I do not assume that physical change does not change us. I do assume that physical change does not change our spirit however.
What I am assuming is that a copy is a copy is a copy. A copy of me, sitting next to me, thinking that it is me, is not me even if it knows what I had for breakfast last week. That is probably not an assumption really, it seems like logic to me.
I am assuming that we are more than a lump of material arranged in a certain way however. Life is more than that. A transporter beam only transports material. A copying of a body only for a resurrection ends up with a lump of dead matter unless a new breathe of life is put into it, a new spirit.
BUT probably the logic of what I said earlier about a copy being a copy and a copy sitting next to me not being me, would logically mean that there needs to be more than the material elements arranged in a certain way for me to be me. It is sort of an argument for the existence of the spirit.
I hope you could follow that.
Of course this is something that we cannot test and I don't know how it could be tested. If a 100 copies of me all thought they were me, how do we test if they actually are all me or not? Maybe multiple me's could be running around at the same time. It just seems "self evident" to me that a copy would not be me.

I can imagine having a ghost or a spirit, but such things may not have any sort of central location as we understand locations. Assuming we did have some intrinsic intangible essence like that it would still be within God as I understand things. In the mystical passage of Acts 17:28 Peter says its in God that we live and move and have our being, but God is everywhere. Hence transporter beam = no problem with a spirit, either.

Then of course that would mean that the creator of love and interpersonal relationships cannot love and relate. God would be less than His creation then I guess.

The upside could be that God's love would be expressed through us or mirrored by us, and another upside might be that God lacking human qualities could not be called 'Cruel' either. This doesn't answer your challenge, because God is a big topic. Its is perhaps too big for any post.

 

[Brian2]

I can imagine having a ghost or a spirit, but such things may not have any sort of central location as we understand locations. Assuming we did have some intrinsic intangible essence like that it would still be within God as I understand things. In the mystical passage of Acts 17:28 Peter says its in God that we live and move and have our being, but God is everywhere. Hence transporter beam = no problem with a spirit, either.

But transporter beam and resurrection would be a problem without a spirit imo.

The upside could be that God's love would be expressed through us or mirrored by us, and another upside might be that God lacking human qualities could not be called 'Cruel' either. This doesn't answer your challenge, because God is a big topic. Its is perhaps too big for any post.

I think what we are told in scripture, that God is love, eliminates the idea that God is cruel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But transporter beam and resurrection would be a problem without a spirit imo.

Being without a spirit is a problem in your opinion, but I don't think spirit means what you are suggesting. What I think man has over animal is our ability to make moral choices, but this would reappear upon reproduction of our bodies and brains. Therefore should there be some bodily resurrection I wouldn't worry about duplication as my spirit would be reconstructed when I took a breath and began to remember. (though I think in God all things persist timelessly anyway).

I think what we are told in scripture, that God is love, eliminates the idea that God is cruel.

As a quote from John it sounds great, but a quote from Paul says everything that can be known about God is obvious from nature. There is also more than one way to read John's "God is love." Throughout his letter John is telling us to love one another. Jesus tells his disciples they must remain in his love, which means they (we) can leave it. It is more complicated than you present.

 

[Brian2]

Being without a spirit is a problem in your opinion, but I don't think spirit means what you are suggesting. What I think man has over animal is our ability to make moral choices, but this would reappear upon reproduction of our bodies and brains. Therefore should there be some bodily resurrection I wouldn't worry about duplication as my spirit would be reconstructed when I took a breath and began to remember. (though I think in God all things persist timelessly anyway).

Making a body that is the same as the body that we have, even if that was all to the person and the physical body when somehow made alive did remember what we had remembered as a person,,,,,,,,,,does not mean that the copied body has become the person who died. And it would be a recreated person and not a resurrected person.
The only way to ensure a resurrection is if the actual spirit essence of the person is carried from one body to the other. If we perceive spirit as somehow being physical than making a copy of a physical body is not a resurrection of the person and as I say to JWs, that could be done now and the copies of me running around and who think they are me, would definitely not be me. It would not be any different if a copy of me was made when I was dead.

As a quote from John it sounds great, but a quote from Paul says everything that can be known about God is obvious from nature. There is also more than one way to read John's "God is love." Throughout his letter John is telling us to love one another. Jesus tells his disciples they must remain in his love, which means they (we) can leave it. It is more complicated than you present.

Nature certainly is not tame.
But when it comes to the quote from John and Jesus saying pretty much that we could leave God's love, it is interesting to look up commentaries about what it means to abide in God's love and not abide in God's love. It does not mean that if we do not abide in God's love, that God then does not love us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Making a body that is the same as the body that we have, even if that was all to the person and the physical body when somehow made alive did remember what we had remembered as a person,,,,,,,,,,does not mean that the copied body has become the person who died. And it would be a recreated person and not a resurrected person.
The only way to ensure a resurrection is if the actual spirit essence of the person is carried from one body to the other. If we perceive spirit as somehow being physical than making a copy of a physical body is not a resurrection of the person and as I say to JWs, that could be done now and the copies of me running around and who think they are me, would definitely not be me. It would not be any different if a copy of me was made when I was dead.

I follow what you're saying; but I'm still Ok with the transporter beam. I like them, because they are zippy. Using unknown means they take you apart, transmit you far away and then using unknown quantum effects correctly reassemble your molecules. They are of course impossible and will never be invented. If one ever is invented it will probably be the size of a small moon to transport something small and not very far or very fast. And it will hurt.

Nature certainly is not tame.
But when it comes to the quote from John and Jesus saying pretty much that we could leave God's love, it is interesting to look up commentaries about what it means to abide in God's love and not abide in God's love. It does not mean that if we do not abide in God's love, that God then does not love us.

In a nod to what you are saying, God is considered to be unchanging.

Tiny change of subject: I did not originally intend to try to change your views on God, Brian2. That should not be attempted by me, and I believe that I should not. James says if anyone lacks wisdom they should ask God and that not many should consider themselves teachers and that the tongue is poison and set on fire by hell. Even if I were a stupid person it would still be easy for me to say something which would hurt you deeply and poison you. "He who destroys God's temple: him will God destroy." Its better that I don't place any obstacles in your path if it can be avoided. I have enjoyed our conversation as a mental exercise and am sorry for cutting it short.

 

[rational experiences]

Thesis to talk about life.

Human life father adult lives for 100years. Lived living life recorded. Dies as natural.

Baby growing becomes adult uses father's human heavenly adult memories advice experienced wisdom.

Chooses to be a theist. Chooses science.

Science did not exist reactive forced change. Info past tense only reacted gone cooled evolution info.

Science in reaction not evolution owner natural life presence evolution owner.

Dies sacrificed as theist adult lived saved to age 33.

Sacrificed DNA genetics for 100 years life. Sacrificed it. Lost future man life instantly but survived.

Was resurrected as still man human.
Was sacrificed but was still a man human.

But died age 33 as he gave life away.

Then babies were not born babies died and man never got to grow old introduced to state life sacrificed. Life was resurrected and survived get sacrificed saved life never lived

How it was taught

Try to copy. Life not being sacrificed that allows sacrifice of life to be expressed would be annihilated.

No such status to copy.

A human copied to become a human is a newly born baby not any adult human.

 

[Brian2]

I follow what you're saying; but I'm still Ok with the transporter beam. I like them, because they are zippy. Using unknown means they take you apart, transmit you far away and then using unknown quantum effects correctly reassemble your molecules. They are of course impossible and will never be invented. If one ever is invented it will probably be the size of a small moon to transport something small and not very far or very fast. And it will hurt.

In a nod to what you are saying, God is considered to be unchanging.

Tiny change of subject: I did not originally intend to try to change your views on God, Brian2. That should not be attempted by me, and I believe that I should not. James says if anyone lacks wisdom they should ask God and that not many should consider themselves teachers and that the tongue is poison and set on fire by hell. Even if I were a stupid person it would still be easy for me to say something which would hurt you deeply and poison you. "He who destroys God's temple: him will God destroy." Its better that I don't place any obstacles in your path if it can be avoided. I have enjoyed our conversation as a mental exercise and am sorry for cutting it short.

Thanks for the talk.