TrumanSmith wrote: How can you continue to exist if your body is dead and in the ground?
There are a number of possibilities.
1. Humans may be made of 2 (dichtomist) or 3 (trichotomist) parts, the body being just 1 of them. In such a case, the 'soul' (defined as the spiritual/immaterial part... continues to exist after it leaves the body. Since your argument against the existence of the soul is nonsense, this is a possibility.
2. Humans may have 2 different aspects (a hardware aspects and a software aspect). If the hardware dies, it may be that God uploads one's software onto his hardware until such a time that God resurrects one's hardware. This view fits better with your views against dichotomy/trichotomy and is still well-accepted by leading christian scholars.
Are you admitting the necessity of a soul? Is your reply yes, no, or "I don't know?" The convenient thing about saying "I don't know" means you never have to defend anything. Just put down your opponent while standing for nothing.
I am not admitting the necessity of the 'soul.' #2 above does not require a dichotomist (or trichotomist view). I would have no problem, though, admitting the necessity of the 'soul' if I felt the Bible clearly taught it, since your argument against the possibility of the soul is nonsense.
I am not saying I don't know to avoid your argument (why would I avoid nonsense other than to save myself from wasting time). I am saying I don't know because I don't know. I lean toward something closer to NT Wright's view (#2 above). But it is such an unimportant issue in Christianity that I literally don't care. I don't much care about the intermediate state. I care about resurrection.
That's why I have some admiration for RTB, because they do at least see the responsible need to have a creation model, alternative, rather than just trying to shoot down evolution without offering an alternative. Steve Gregg also has no alternatives to evolution, and is largely in the "I don't know" category. He tries to justify it by saying "it doesn't matter." But it really does matter for people who think about it. It just doesn't matter for him because he doesn't go there mentally. Maybe it is because he's afraid there really is no reasonable position for him to have as a Christian, so best to avoid it all together.
Without offering an alternative? What are you talking about? Special creation by God IS an alternative view. The mistake you keep making is thinking that a non-dogmatic person must be uninformed. This is probably b/c our culture has trained you to desire absolute certainty (an impossibility on such things as this) to the point that non-absolute-sounding-people drive you insane. Special creation (of mature humans) is an option. Theistic evolution is an option. Naturalistic evolution is an option. They are all options to consider. For the Christian, the 1st two are worth consideration as opposing options.
Millard Erickson's "Christian Theology" textbook goes into a lot of discussion over ideas of the soul. This is something theologians, those trying to make sense thinking about God, talk about. Erickson spills a lot of ink on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Theolog ... 0801021820
Yes, I have the book. And that's just my point. It is something 'theologians' get into and talk about. It is an in-house debate within Christianity. It is not essential to Christianity. Resurrection is essential. Resurrection is the core of Christianity, not the existence of the 'soul' in the intermediate state.
In church, I have taught on the 'soul' many times... as a side issue. I've presented the monist, dichotomist, and trichotomist options. I've given people the various Scriptures that might sound like each option. I've taught them about the Hebrew view of humankind (various aspects) verses the Greek view of humankind (various parts). I've given them the material with which to think for themselves. My point being, it is not a subject I've avoided.
