Hi Stacy. Thanks for hangin’ in there with me.

What I meant to say was that the physicalist/dualist debate is not central to the Christian faith. Both physicalists like myself and dualists like yourself hold to the hope of New Creation. The only detail that changes is the ‘in-between’ of after death and before resurrection.

I was raised to believe that Christianity was primarily about being saved from hell. Like you (if I’m hearing you right). However, I think it might be better to say that we are saved from sin (this is also a more biblical formulation). Sin has both immediate and long-term consequences, and the Spirit’s transforming power has an effect on both. Have you heard of Willard’s distinction between the ‘gospel of sin management’ and the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’? I’m trying to make essentially the same point. The Reign of God announced by our Lord is an inbreaking of God’s reality into the present. This inbreaking will certainly have future consequences, but it is most definitely primarily about the here and now.

As far as the ‘breath of God’ is concerned. The Genesis narrative doesn’t portray God’s breath itself as particularly ‘special’—it is rather a simple giving of breath (divine CPR if you will). This results in life, so it is ‘miraculous’ or ‘special’ in that sense, but I see no reason, from the text to assume that it is a non-physical substance.

As far as the fall is concerned, the Genesis narrative assumes that Adam and Eve’s freedom from death was dependent upon the fruit of the tree of life (and not some innate force, or soul). Having been removed from that tree of life, death is an inevitable consequence of living. Again, the Genesis narrative nowhere assumes anything like an eternal non-physical soul, and I don’t think we should either.

Am I making sense?

I am glad you seem to be profitting from the content of this site. I wish you the best as you think through the questions you are wrestling with. God bless you.

-Daniel-