Why Plants Are Not Alive To God

In the creation account plants are formed as part of a staging process towards man, whom the scriptures describe as "a living soul". Plants are in the account formed without the presence of electromagnetism (EM) and gravity (inertial or gravitaional mass). God no doubt did this to show that with chemistry effectively on hold temporally, with no chemical reactions God could examine organic chemistry to see if it were truly stable before continuing with creation and the making of all life.

God would inded have formed the plants in full knowledge of all the stability of every required molecule: yet the bible also has accounts of God coming to see if events on earth had really got as bad as he had "heard of it" (The destruction of Sodom being such an event). That God takes care with this greatest of all experiments, to check that nothing is out of place anywhere in his creation of live giving chemistry should fill us all with fear.

Scientists that experiment with genetically modifid organisms claim they are better than God: they claim as life evolved by accident, they with some prescient insight are far better ro be trusted with the keys of life than a creator Himself. Utterly shocking.

Yet plants, having existed without the animation of consciousness that animal life has separates it from the life God created afterwards with the presence of active chemistry utilising EM and mass. It is in this sense that God distinguishes the plants as not alive, for they can not be considered to have "souls" the way both men and yes, animals may be considered to have.

Chemical onsciousness could not continue if the body was on hold chemically (stasis) the distinction in the creation account and the subsequent distinction of life to creatures with consciousness state, right from the off that man and animals are both not merely chemical machines that rest purely on mechanical action : but are living creatures with souls that enable their lives rather than their chemistry to continue. In the creation account we have, even before the first mention of Adam as "a living soul", an account that makes just such a distinction.

For, if the body was chemically static would the consciousness (that may continue spiritually after death) continue in some fashion? Likewise (rephrasing) if the body was electrically controlled by external means, the jolt of power to a limb produces involuntary movement of the limb. Likewise, would full electrical control of the mind produce actual thought or the later realisation of involuntary thought?

There is much reseach into mind control, most of it so shocking it would or should cause outcry. If involuntary movement of the body could be indistinguishable from the movement initiated by consciousness that is one thing: but if consciousness is indistinguishable from an external mechanical controller, that is another.

Stasis then, is consciousness in like terms - completely involuntary existence; rather than a fainting fit. A fainting fit is the creation of involuntary action outside of the control or perception of the consciousness; it is not an action that can be "blamed" on the one person having a fit. It can not be remembered or experienced: why then should stasis be "alive" in the sense of a body having a "soul" that for a continuous instant, resists against the chemically static (or controlled) container it is within? Stasis would not be part of the consciousness: and would therefore be in like terms, not conscious at all. (The container could not be so tested as suitable for "life". Rather in the account plants were testing the organic chemisty itself as under stasis.)

Mind control then is the act of creating a continuous fainting fit in its "completeness" as a method, which leads to the mind being free from guilt or blame under its action. The concept of mind control is so evil that God would and will never test a living thing with it. God would use plants that have no soul to show that he is the creator that loves His world. That is being gentle, not as the devil does so with subtlety instead.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page