Comments on: The First Church of Transhumanism http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lars Munk Sørensen http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56226 Lars Munk Sørensen Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:05:37 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56226 Thanks for your biblical guidance, Bill! Well, I don´t see Britney Spears living to be a 1000 at her going rate; and good riddance of Hitler and Stalin! God bless, Lars Munk Sørensen Thanks for your biblical guidance, Bill!
Well, I don´t see Britney Spears living to be a 1000 at her going rate; and good riddance of Hitler and Stalin!

God bless, Lars Munk Sørensen

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56225 Bill Muehlenberg Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:59:21 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56225 Thanks again Lars As I have said in various places in the post, I have no objection – nor does Scripture – to alleviating suffering, working for health and against disease, and helping us all have a better quality of life and better life expectancy. But Scripture seems to assume throughout that man must live with limits, at least in his fallen state. As soon as Adam and Eve fell into sin, they were banished from access to the Tree of Life. Living forever in a fallen, sin-soaked state was evidently something God did not take too kindly to. Genesis 6:3 might be a hint of out intended lifespan. Again, there is nothing wrong with working to extend life to some degree. But always we must keep in mind limitations which God himself seems to have imposed. Is 1000 years reasonable? I don’t know. That may be more of a scientific question (is it actually possible?) than a theological question. Sinful man always wants to live without limits. But limits are a good thing, not a bad thing. I have written on the quest for perfection and limitlessness here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/04/13/the-perils-of-perfection/ And here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/learning-to-live-with-limits/ I quote Jewish philosopher and bioethicist Leon Kass in both of those articles. He is well worth reading on all this (see the related posts mentioned to the left of those articles). He rightly reminds us that the important thing is to live a good life, an ethical life, not necessarily a long life. After all, who wants to see Hitler or Stalin – or perhaps Paris Hilton or Britney Spears - living to be 1000? Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks again Lars

As I have said in various places in the post, I have no objection – nor does Scripture – to alleviating suffering, working for health and against disease, and helping us all have a better quality of life and better life expectancy. But Scripture seems to assume throughout that man must live with limits, at least in his fallen state.

As soon as Adam and Eve fell into sin, they were banished from access to the Tree of Life. Living forever in a fallen, sin-soaked state was evidently something God did not take too kindly to. Genesis 6:3 might be a hint of out intended lifespan.

Again, there is nothing wrong with working to extend life to some degree. But always we must keep in mind limitations which God himself seems to have imposed. Is 1000 years reasonable? I don’t know. That may be more of a scientific question (is it actually possible?) than a theological question.

Sinful man always wants to live without limits. But limits are a good thing, not a bad thing. I have written on the quest for perfection and limitlessness here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/04/13/the-perils-of-perfection/
And here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/learning-to-live-with-limits/

I quote Jewish philosopher and bioethicist Leon Kass in both of those articles. He is well worth reading on all this (see the related posts mentioned to the left of those articles). He rightly reminds us that the important thing is to live a good life, an ethical life, not necessarily a long life. After all, who wants to see Hitler or Stalin – or perhaps Paris Hilton or Britney Spears – living to be 1000?

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Lars Munk Sørensen http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56195 Lars Munk Sørensen Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:13:15 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56195 Phil 1, 21 ff: St. Paul wishes to die to join Christ - but given medical advances already implemented, we might live even longer to do Christian work in this life. Paul acknowledges the value of living the eartly life a while longer. If that precludes immortalism, does it also preclude, say, a 1000 years life extension? Many people of the Bible lived to a much riper old age than we do today - not just Methusaleh. 2. Cor 4:16-18: Paul did not live in an age where life extension was yet possible to any greater degree than that of hygiene and nutrition: But does that rule out that we, too, should stay in the flesh in this earthly life, say, until the Second Coming? Seriously awaiting your biblical guidance, Lars Munk Sørensen, M. A. Theol., Denmark Phil 1, 21 ff: St. Paul wishes to die to join Christ – but given medical advances already implemented, we might live even longer to do Christian work in this life. Paul acknowledges the value of living the eartly life a while longer. If that precludes immortalism, does it also preclude, say, a 1000 years life extension? Many people of the Bible lived to a much riper old age than we do today – not just Methusaleh.
2. Cor 4:16-18: Paul did not live in an age where life extension was yet possible to any greater degree than that of hygiene and nutrition: But does that rule out that we, too, should stay in the flesh in this earthly life, say, until the Second Coming?

Seriously awaiting your biblical guidance, Lars Munk Sørensen, M. A. Theol., Denmark

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56053 Bill Muehlenberg Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:18:31 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56053 Thanks Lars I mentioned to Aubrey that an article needs to be written on how all this fits with living between the ages. That I have done and you can see it here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/01/28/living-between-the-ages/ As I have said many times now, there is nothing wrong with doing all we can to alleviate suffering and to work for more healthy outcomes. But there are limits which God himself seems to have set in place. Grace may abound, but that does not mean the consequences of sin just disappear. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned and therefore all will die. Eternal life comes only by the work of Christ on the cross, not by human attempts at immortality. Sin still holds sway, and the consequences of sin – physical death in this life for all, and eternal spiritual death for those who reject the forgiveness offered by Christ – still apply to all of us. If you think humans now can somehow be exempt from physical death because of what Christ has done, you are seriously misreading the New Testament. No NT writer, or early Christian, held that position. Consider Philippians 1:12-30 and 2 Cor. 4:16-18 for starters. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Lars

I mentioned to Aubrey that an article needs to be written on how all this fits with living between the ages. That I have done and you can see it here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/01/28/living-between-the-ages/

As I have said many times now, there is nothing wrong with doing all we can to alleviate suffering and to work for more healthy outcomes. But there are limits which God himself seems to have set in place. Grace may abound, but that does not mean the consequences of sin just disappear. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned and therefore all will die. Eternal life comes only by the work of Christ on the cross, not by human attempts at immortality.

Sin still holds sway, and the consequences of sin – physical death in this life for all, and eternal spiritual death for those who reject the forgiveness offered by Christ – still apply to all of us. If you think humans now can somehow be exempt from physical death because of what Christ has done, you are seriously misreading the New Testament. No NT writer, or early Christian, held that position. Consider Philippians 1:12-30 and 2 Cor. 4:16-18 for starters.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Lars Munk Sørensen http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56038 Lars Munk Sørensen Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:52:53 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56038 Dear Bill, I, too, am a Christian, and as such I, too, await the Second Coming of Christ. In the meantime, I hope that humans will continue the increasing of healthy lifespans we have achieved over the last many secles. The limitation of Death was due to the Fall and our sins - the goal is to regain Grace, and for that goal, God does not desire our physical death: Christ did that for us and thus took our sins upon Himself on the cross. True, we are not perfect like Christ was, but that is exactly the point: By adhering to Christ we receive Grace by the Faith given us in our baptism and our communions. Again, this doesn´t require us to die physically. So while we wait for the Second Coming, I prefer to do as Luke the doctor did (and Christ himself, who healed and resurrected). Alleviate suffering - and death can be a very long and painful suffering. Lars Munk Sørensen Dear Bill,
I, too, am a Christian, and as such I, too, await the Second Coming of Christ. In the meantime, I hope that humans will continue the increasing of healthy lifespans we have achieved over the last many secles. The limitation of Death was due to the Fall and our sins – the goal is to regain Grace, and for that goal, God does not desire our physical death: Christ did that for us and thus took our sins upon Himself on the cross. True, we are not perfect like Christ was, but that is exactly the point: By adhering to Christ we receive Grace by the Faith given us in our baptism and our communions. Again, this doesn´t require us to die physically. So while we wait for the Second Coming, I prefer to do as Luke the doctor did (and Christ himself, who healed and resurrected). Alleviate suffering – and death can be a very long and painful suffering.
Lars Munk Sørensen

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-56022 Bill Muehlenberg Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:33:03 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-56022 Thanks Aubrey Those are some very good questions. But you may be somewhat confusing several separate issues here. Lars asked his question claiming to be a Christian, so I was there giving a biblical response to his comment. There are, it appears, biblical limitations placed on our lifespan. Genesis 6:3 and Hebrews 9:27 are possible texts which come to mind here. In our sinful, selfish, fallen state, to live forever would be a great evil, not a great good. It seems that God knows it best that we do not live forever in a state of rebellion and anti-God arrogance. As I have mentioned, we can have eternal life, but that comes by doing it God’s way (repenting of our sins and putting our faith in Christ), not our way. But it is a separate question to ask whether there are any biological or physiological limitations on human immortality. That is a scientific question (with ethical implications). It can become a biblical or theological question when we ask whether we should seek for such immortality. As to the relief of human suffering, there are again nuances which we need to consider from a biblical point of view. Because of the Fall, we all suffer and we all die. Suffering and death are inevitable in a sin-soaked world. Yet we are also called to work against the effects of the Fall. So we can work against the effects of sin in myriads of ways, including the relief of suffering and ill-health. But we are realistic (from a biblical point of view), knowing that until Christ returns, there will be no perfection on this earth. Jesus healed people, but they all eventually died. Even Lazarus presumably died, after being raised by Jesus. It is often Christians who have been at the forefront of setting up hospitals and working in health care fields, and so on. Yet we know that on this side of eternity we will only see imperfection, shortcomings and limited success in anything we undertake. There are some theological phrases for all this: it is called “living between the ages”, or the “already and not yet”. When Christ came the first time, he defeated Satan and his works. Yet until Christ comes again, there is still sin, suffering and death. The complete work of redemption awaits the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 8:18-21 lays this out clearly. So already the Kingdom of God has arrived (2000 years ago) but it is not yet fully realised (until he comes again). So we live between the ages. The old age (of sin, suffering and death) is still upon us, but the new age (of freedom, deliverance, and perfection) has dawned, and is awaiting its full and final realisation. So yes, we work for substantial, but not complete, progress in this world, knowing that all our efforts are limited. With the help of Christ, we work against all the effects of sin. But we are realistic, aware that in this life we continue to be fallen and finite. Those limitations can only be fully overcome when Christ returns and the New Heaven and New Earth are inaugurated. This is an important issue, so I may pen a whole article on this in the near future. Thanks for your comments. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Aubrey

Those are some very good questions. But you may be somewhat confusing several separate issues here. Lars asked his question claiming to be a Christian, so I was there giving a biblical response to his comment. There are, it appears, biblical limitations placed on our lifespan. Genesis 6:3 and Hebrews 9:27 are possible texts which come to mind here. In our sinful, selfish, fallen state, to live forever would be a great evil, not a great good. It seems that God knows it best that we do not live forever in a state of rebellion and anti-God arrogance. As I have mentioned, we can have eternal life, but that comes by doing it God’s way (repenting of our sins and putting our faith in Christ), not our way.

But it is a separate question to ask whether there are any biological or physiological limitations on human immortality. That is a scientific question (with ethical implications). It can become a biblical or theological question when we ask whether we should seek for such immortality.

As to the relief of human suffering, there are again nuances which we need to consider from a biblical point of view. Because of the Fall, we all suffer and we all die. Suffering and death are inevitable in a sin-soaked world. Yet we are also called to work against the effects of the Fall. So we can work against the effects of sin in myriads of ways, including the relief of suffering and ill-health.

But we are realistic (from a biblical point of view), knowing that until Christ returns, there will be no perfection on this earth. Jesus healed people, but they all eventually died. Even Lazarus presumably died, after being raised by Jesus. It is often Christians who have been at the forefront of setting up hospitals and working in health care fields, and so on. Yet we know that on this side of eternity we will only see imperfection, shortcomings and limited success in anything we undertake.

There are some theological phrases for all this: it is called “living between the ages”, or the “already and not yet”. When Christ came the first time, he defeated Satan and his works. Yet until Christ comes again, there is still sin, suffering and death. The complete work of redemption awaits the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 8:18-21 lays this out clearly. So already the Kingdom of God has arrived (2000 years ago) but it is not yet fully realised (until he comes again). So we live between the ages. The old age (of sin, suffering and death) is still upon us, but the new age (of freedom, deliverance, and perfection) has dawned, and is awaiting its full and final realisation.

So yes, we work for substantial, but not complete, progress in this world, knowing that all our efforts are limited. With the help of Christ, we work against all the effects of sin. But we are realistic, aware that in this life we continue to be fallen and finite. Those limitations can only be fully overcome when Christ returns and the New Heaven and New Earth are inaugurated.

This is an important issue, so I may pen a whole article on this in the near future. Thanks for your comments.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Aubrey de Grey http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-55821 Aubrey de Grey Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:15:58 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-55821 Dear Bill, In response to Lars Sorensen you write: "we can improve health and human longevity to a point. But there are limits, which God himself seems to have set in place." I presume you mean that the family of interrelated phenomena that we call "aging" appears to proceed at the same rate in everyone, give or take a factor of at most two, and is universally fatal. But aging is typically fatal only following a long period of debilitation and suffering. Hence, is this limit one that God has made immutable, or is it one that He has simply made as a difficult but achievable test for us, to see whether we really have faith that He made us with the ability to alleviate suffering in this life (even if not to eliminate it completely)? It seems to me that the only way we can answer that question is to do as Lars suggests - try our best to postpone aging and see what happens - and that to do otherwise would be contrary to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The alternative - to seek ways to postpone or alleviate the suffering of aging without postponing aging itself - would be to close ourselves prematurely to the possibility that the suffering cannot be alleviated without postponing aging itself. Can you tell me where I'm going wrong? Aubrey de Grey, Cambridge, UK Dear Bill,

In response to Lars Sorensen you write: “we can improve health and human longevity to a point. But there are limits, which God himself seems to have set in place.” I presume you mean that the family of interrelated phenomena that we call “aging” appears to proceed at the same rate in everyone, give or take a factor of at most two, and is universally fatal. But aging is typically fatal only following a long period of debilitation and suffering. Hence, is this limit one that God has made immutable, or is it one that He has simply made as a difficult but achievable test for us, to see whether we really have faith that He made us with the ability to alleviate suffering in this life (even if not to eliminate it completely)? It seems to me that the only way we can answer that question is to do as Lars suggests – try our best to postpone aging and see what happens – and that to do otherwise would be contrary to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The alternative – to seek ways to postpone or alleviate the suffering of aging without postponing aging itself – would be to close ourselves prematurely to the possibility that the suffering cannot be alleviated without postponing aging itself. Can you tell me where I’m going wrong?

Aubrey de Grey, Cambridge, UK

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-55559 Bill Muehlenberg Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:47:08 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-55559 Thanks Nicholas There are two responses to your question. First, you of course can choose to do whatever you like with your life. You can tell God to get lost and live as if he does not exist. God has made you with a free will, and he is gentleman enough to allow you to reject him. It is your choice, and you will have to live with the consequences of your choices. But second, Jesus made a really interesting statement in John 15:15: he said that he no longer calls his followers servants (slaves) but friends. God is not looking for slaves to follow him in fear and terror. Instead, God is looking for people to enter into a love relationship with him through his son Jesus. That is quite remarkable. Even though we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own selfish ways, he sent his son to die for us, taking our sins upon himself so that we might have a restored love relationship with him. Again, it is our choice. We can reject this love overture from God, and continue to wallow in our sin and selfishness, both now and for eternity, or we can accept his love gift to us, and enter into a love relationship with the creator of the universe. God has done all he can to make this possible. The rest is up to us. The ball is now in your court Nicholas. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Nicholas

There are two responses to your question. First, you of course can choose to do whatever you like with your life. You can tell God to get lost and live as if he does not exist. God has made you with a free will, and he is gentleman enough to allow you to reject him. It is your choice, and you will have to live with the consequences of your choices.

But second, Jesus made a really interesting statement in John 15:15: he said that he no longer calls his followers servants (slaves) but friends. God is not looking for slaves to follow him in fear and terror. Instead, God is looking for people to enter into a love relationship with him through his son Jesus. That is quite remarkable. Even though we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own selfish ways, he sent his son to die for us, taking our sins upon himself so that we might have a restored love relationship with him.

Again, it is our choice. We can reject this love overture from God, and continue to wallow in our sin and selfishness, both now and for eternity, or we can accept his love gift to us, and enter into a love relationship with the creator of the universe. God has done all he can to make this possible. The rest is up to us. The ball is now in your court Nicholas.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Nicholas Kirkiridis http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-54501 Nicholas Kirkiridis Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:40:44 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-54501 While I don't agree with your point of view (and yes I'm a transhumanist), I have but one very simple question? What if I don't want to live as "God's" slave? Quite frankely the two so called dueling powers of good and evil sound like neither have a benevolant agenda and more ulteria motives of casting themselves in a postion as our masters. Through out teh cetuaries mankind kind has feared such "super-natural" beings and cowered. Now personally I'm an athiest but in the event I'm wrong, I think it's time mankind stopped taking orders and free'd itself from the covert shackles that has kept it subserviant. Nicholas Kirkiridis While I don’t agree with your point of view (and yes I’m a transhumanist), I have but one very simple question?

What if I don’t want to live as “God’s” slave?

Quite frankely the two so called dueling powers of good and evil sound like neither have a benevolant agenda and more ulteria motives of casting themselves in a postion as our masters. Through out teh cetuaries mankind kind has feared such “super-natural” beings and cowered.

Now personally I’m an athiest but in the event I’m wrong, I think it’s time mankind stopped taking orders and free’d itself from the covert shackles that has kept it subserviant.

Nicholas Kirkiridis

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/comment-page-1/#comment-46462 Bill Muehlenberg Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:21:16 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/02/the-first-church-of-transhumanism/#comment-46462 Thanks Napa But I believe I have answered your question numerous times now, both in my article and in my comments. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Napa

But I believe I have answered your question numerous times now, both in my article and in my comments.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]>