Science Fiction and Theology - Part 7 - Cryogenics

Time to finish this series up.

Cryogenics is the science of trying to freeze living matter to the point of death but with the ability to revive that matter back to normal life. In science fiction this has been put to various uses.
1. Storage of clones as extra body parts
2. Putting criminals 'on ice'.
3. Use for space travel in that the crew is frozen for long duration while the ship travels.
4. Medical -- store the person until a cure can be found or a donor comes along.
5. Effect a form of immortality. Body is slowed in function, but brain is allowed to roam a virtual world (The Matrix)

Where this crosses into theology is in the field of ethics -- medical and social.
1. Medical ethics - is a clone life? Robert Heinlein theorized in Time Enough for Love, that cloning could get so advanced that an entire body could be cloned without a true functioning brain so that when a person got old their brain could be moved to the new body. Along with other rejuvenation technologies, this could give a person effective immortality. What happens to "appointed once to die and then the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)
2. Is it really punishment to put criminals in cryo-freeze based on the Bible? Not really, just prolongs things and releases that criminal back into society unchanged. Not really justice from a Biblical point of view.
3. Space Travel has been discussed but what are ethics of volunteering for a trip from which you may not wake up should technology fail on the way?
4. In the case of medical waiting till a cure is found I can see some uses but at what point does it end and how do we determine who is valuable enough for this?
5. Living in a virtual world brings in the whole ethical questions of the what is life and how do we live it? Effective immortality or slavery?

Next: Lest We Forget - Robots.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 4 -- Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality

Probably the most sticky questions of Science Fiction are raised when medical ethics and technology are discussed. One thing has always been organ transplant. Now many of the medical procedures that do this where originally some form of Science fiction; now many are science fact. One that remains fiction in brain transplant. Perhaps it would be better to say central nervous system transplant. Robert Heinlein postulated this in his book "I Will Fear No Evil". In it a rich beyond billionaire transplants his brain into another body. The big issue though is the body is female and is young, sensual and pretty. By so doing the man extends his life into another.

This of course leads to a whole host of ethical questions:
1. Who is the person then? The brain or the body or both.
2. Does this really constitute a sex change? Not really in a sense but this could be used to do it.
3. Who would be a donor body for this?

Now what get really frightening is when you couple this idea with cloning.
1. Could we then keep spare bodies around when we get tired of the one were in? Effective youth and immortality.
2. Are such clones persons when their only function is to be the next shell?
3. What happens to -- a man is appointed once to die and then the judgment?

Gets interesting and sticky doesn't it?

Next: The Information Hyper Highway

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 1 -- Eden Again

I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath what I am going to do now. Well, OK that is a little fantasy of mine that I have thousands of lurkers reading everything I write with breathless anticipation. Right.

This is a spin off from my last series and in it I am going to engage the first issue I presented -- public nudity. Only, I want to get a clear Biblical definition of nakedness and what it means to be naked and see if it lines up with the modern church's concept of the subject.

The first place nakedness occurs in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 2 and 3. The whole creation of man and fall story has as one of the central issues -- the nakedness of mankind. Although, I doubt most people look at it as a central issue but let's see -- it is the issue that their eyes were opened to see that they were naked that the knowledge of sin is known. Hmmmm.

Before the Fall
Verse 25 of chapter two is telling: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Given the time we also need to remember that when God is done creating he calls all things 'very good' and this includes the fact that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed about it. Let's review: Good equals naked and unashamed.

The Fall's Affect on Nakedness
The Fall's immediate affect to both Adam and Eve is that they become aware of their nakedness. Sin equals awareness of nakedness. The result is an attempt to hide their nakedness. The thing is that they are not trying to conceal their nakedness from each other. Sorry Adam and Eve are husband and wife and once you have seen it all with each other there is no shame. Trust me on this I have no problem changing my clothes in front of my wife. Their issue is being naked before GOD. Sin has made them aware of this.

This story also illustrates another thing about nakedness -- where they considered themselves naked. They make aprons for themselves. Loins area. I want to note at this point that Eve does not also fashioned a bra or corset. In deference to all the movies I doubt she bothered to cover her breasts at all -- even with her hair.

It also makes me wonder something else -- was the nakedness about their bodies or their spirits? This passage does not answer it other than to say they were afraid of God when he arrived, but it might be a question to consider as we travel through this series.

There are some consequences for the Fall
1. Separated relationship with God for Mankind
2. Separated relationship between man and woman
3. Beginning of loss of relationship with creation
4. Hard work for men
5. Increased pain in childbirth for women
6. Loss of the tree of life and Eden
7. SHAME in Being Naked
8. Having to wear clothes -- see I have told people that the fashion industry is of the devil and I now have proof. ;-)

I highlight the last two because many people see the wearing of clothes as a good thing and the shame associated with it as natural to man. In deference to such people I see them as results of sin and the fall of mankind just as much as the others. Bad -- Sin equals shame and clothes.

Now the argument raised by Biblically knowledgeable nudists and topfree advocates is, that if sin is the cause of shame concerning nakedness, why do conservative Christians consider it a sin to return to this state of naked and unashamed when it was declared good by God. Do we not tell people after they are saved that they can have victory over sin and that God begins to cleanse us from sin including the results of it. One of the results of sin is shame involving nakedness and clothes. If a person is saved, do we not say that God can removed the shame of their sin?

I hate to say it but this is a good argument. Robert Heinlein, author of many classic science fiction stories, basically argued this way. The argument being that if we Christians were really trying to bring people back into right relationship with God and bring the world back to paradise we Christians should join him in being a nudist. We would try to help people overcome the stigma of nakedness and take off our clothes.

Good equals naked and unashamed.
Bad equals ashamed of nakedness and clothes.
Advocates of nudity point this out.
See the Problem.

This story in Genesis only really points out the beginnings of the problem it does not say how mankind dealt with it. More on that later.

Next: Noah: Drunk and Naked

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 3 -- Homosexual Marriage

Isn't it interesting how sometimes things come together that you didn't expect or look for? Like my post for today and the decision yesterday to allow active and practicing homosexuals to be ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELC). I really wonder how they can claim to be Evangelical (there is little conservative evangelicalism in this decision) or Lutheran (Can we really see Martin Luther advocating homosexuals in the pulpit), but then again nothing surprises me these days.

There is absolutely no Biblical basis to say homosexuality is justified by God. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God looks at homosexuality as one of the great sins. Right up their with adultery and rape. Homosexuality is listed by multiple Biblical authors as a sin that will destroy you covenant with God both in the Old and New Testaments. Yet here we are not only fighting about homosexual marriage but whether or not to let such people in the pulpit to preach the Word they are violating.

Now, I want something understood, I consider adultery to be just as bad and I have a fit where many denominations have rehab stuff for ministers caught in infidelity but not in homosexuality. Both are equally abhorrent to God. It is only in our minds that we make one above the other. In the Law of Moses both were punishable by death along with rape, murder and sorcery. (Not fornication, couples caught in 'trouble' are simply required to get married with no option for divorce) The reason I say this is I know many churches where homosexuals are forbidden to attend but people in adultery are openly allowed to go. Sorry, double standard. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

Now, in our relationship with the world I think we need to realize not everyone is a Christian and we can't go around legislating morality or in the end homosexual marriage. The battle is not over on this but I believe it will end with some states having homosexual rights. California surprised me. but don't think that is forever. Just means California gays will probably take their case to a higher court which is what they have been looking for in the first place. What we will see is gays immigrating to states that allow them their wishes. Ultimately legislation solves nothing, if people want to engage in sin, they will do so whether it is legal or not. Only the gospel and the changed life through its acceptance stops homosexuality, adultery or any other sin. This gospel is very difficult to preach to someone if they look at you as an enemy political force or trying to take away their rights.

Homosexual marriage has some implications to other things normally seen in this issue.

1. If the homosexuals get their way, what other marriage situations will suddenly petition to have equal rights: polygamy (subject of another post in this series) -- which might include one man with multiple women or *gasp* a woman with multiple men and group marriages of all types (One form is 'line marriage' with men and women sharing each other -- say three men and four women -- the combinations are endless -- for the purpose creating and raising children -- a la Robert A. Heinlein's views in his science fiction) and open marriages. Or is it open if hubby is dating his perspective fourth wife? Yipe, this gets confusing doesn't it
2. Homosexual and other marriage situations listed above in the church. (I think it might be very interesting for some guy to come into my church and introduce me to his wives!)

The church's response will be interesting because as you can see in some churches like the ELC they accept such things and it makes no difference to many of them if your homosexual or polygamist (See the Mormons in certain places). But what about those good ole boy conservative Evangelicals?
1. We will take the morally superior position and blast people for their lack of moral fortitude that we obviously possess and they don't.
2. We will enter the halls of government as moral crusaders trying to fix every body's bad morality and make things right.
3. When we fail, (and we will fail -- we have been failing with this tactic for over fifty years) we will advocate isolation and casting out with no hope of reconciliation. Creating our own Christian enclaves shut off from the world Jesus loves but is lost in sin.

Not good, but then again it is what we do, even if it hasn't ever ultimately worked. What might work is never done, because we are always looking for someone to blame for the fall of morality in the United States and the real answer is not them, but us. We stopped making change about the gospel and instead left it to the courts and legislatures. We really don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit or the gospel anymore, if we did we would use them more for this and other situations.

Next: Friends with Fringe Benefits

Higher Criticism and Revisionist History: An Interesting Parallel

Robert Heinlein, the Grandmaster of Science Fiction, wrote this of revisionist history in his last book To Sail Beyond the Sunset through the character Maureen Smith:

"In the twentieth century Gregorian in the United States of America, something called 'revisionist history' became popular among 'intellectuals'. Revisionism appears to have been based on the notion that the living actors present on the spot never understood what they were doing and why, or how they were being manipulated, being mere puppets in the hands of unseen evil forces....But why are the people of the United States and their government always the villains in the eyes of the revisionists? Why can't our enemies ... take a turn in the pillroy? Why is it always our turn?" p.67.

He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.

In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.

1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?

Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.

The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.