I will be thankful if you do it!
“the rest” of your excellent remarks would deserve to be discussed more in depth.
I am answering to you with a different account because I did not realize that I have already posted 3 replies consecutively. I apologize.
If you considered worthy discussing my comment we can go on with the thread. Otherwise I will let it going closed. In any case, I thank all of you once more for this enjoyable debate where I have learned so much!
GJDS you raise an interesting point:
Jesus is descended from Adam and Eve after they “were placed in the world amongst the rest of humanity”. This means that the flesh God’s Son (the Word) became is a flesh subjected to pain and decay, shaped by a Darwinian natural selection full of cruelty.
One could think that a more suitable way to prepare the flesh God’s Son became would have been a creation according to Isaiah’s prophecy: “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain” (Isaiah 65:25).
So the question arises: why did the Word become a flesh formed by “harm and destruction”, and “bounded to suffering and death”?
Thank you.
I think we have some leaps of faith here.
Please clarify. Thank you!
Christ assumed human nature, and His genealogy is traced back to Adam - however, He is also the son of God, born without sin. Thus I cannot fathom your statement regarding Darwinian (or any other) evolution shaping the Word of God.
My comment may be simplified by noting the extreme difficulty that is encountered when anyone tries to impose biological evolutionary theories onto theological matters such as the nature of Christ, or how God “does stuff”.
With pleasure Randy.
The idea I try to convey is how wonderful the conservation of personal identity is!
The fact that you are the same person today as at the time of your birth is amazing.
We are used to think that objects “outside there” last in time the same way as you and me last: This is an illusion, which results because we project on them, our “first person knowledge”.
One may understand this better if you think that what is going on in the physical reality is like a movie in the screen of your laptop: space-time is pixelated (or more precisely quantized). There is no material substrate ensuring the connection between two adjacent pixels.
The fact that you can claim to be the same today, as you were yesterday, and as you will be tomorrow reveals that you are referring to an entity which is “in the image of God”.
Thank you! Yes, we are amazing. However, I think we jump into metaphysical assumptions here. I am not the same person I was when I was born. What my definition is, is made up of a complex, changing set of variables and constants (mostly variables) of body composition, neuronal connections, and relationship to my surrounding world. I’ve even changed a lot since becoming a husband and father (something for which I’m grateful).
Even the concept of responsibility evolves with our understanding of what’s around us.
Thank you for your thoughts.
1 Like
Thanks for your comment. Before answering I would like to highlight the following:
The biology underpinning the way humans multiply originates from evolution. This means that evolution endowed humans with a reproduction procedure that enhances love and trust, as it shines in marriage, the relationship mother-child in pregnancy, and family life.
In my view this is a clear sign that God is behind evolution and also wanted it to pave the way for the Word to become flesh.
I would be thankful to know whether or not you agree to these claims.
Since we mentioned Gregory of Nyssa (the making of man), you would notice that he discusses the material/physical aspects of mankind, to show the importance (central theme) of the image of God and the intellectual/spiritual dimension of mankind. It is impossible to derive these matters from evolution, and the phrase
is meaningless theologically.
I recommend you point out something specific from Gregory for a meaningful discussion. 
Randy, certainly you have changed a lot in your life.
But may I ask:
When in all these statements you write ‘I’, are you always meaning you (Randy) or some ‘I’ refer to someone who is not you?
1 Like
I quote from Gregory of Nissa:
since He saw beforehand by His all-seeing power the failure of their will to keep a direct course to what is good, and its consequent declension from the angelic life,
in order that the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by its fall from that mode by which the angels were increased and multiplied —
for this reason, I say, He formed for our nature that contrivance for increase which befits those who had fallen into sin, implanting in mankind, instead of the angelic majesty of nature, that animal and irrational mode by which they now succeed one another. ( On the making of man, XVII, 4 ).
In this respect I would like to stress the following three significant facts:
-
Mary became pregnant by the action of the Holy Spirit.
-
Jesus Christ dwelled in Mary’s womb for 9 months.
-
After his birth Jesus was nurtured as a baby and child by Mary and Joseph several years.
We find here patterns characteristic of the “mode by which [humans] now succeed one another”. And these patterns are undoubtedly rooted in “animal and irrational” behavior, as Gregory rightly states, which amounts to state, that these patterns originate from evolution.
This brings to light a quite relevant conclusion:
The way humans reproduce can be considered (as Gregory does) to be related to the state of humanity after its fall and was foreseen by God for this case, to the extent that God let animal life to evolve and prepare this way of reproduction.
However, the reason why God foresaw this way of reproduction for the case of sin is NOT because it is shameful and “animalistic”, but because it is a marvelous way to enhancing love and trust, and thus move humans toward God to reach redemption.
Therefore, this way of multiplication is holy and as lofty as the angelic one, and we can conclude that it was also foreseen by God even if humans had not sinned. This seems to be the clear teaching of Jesus Christ about the sanctity of marriage in (Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8).
In conclusion, evolution involves not only animalistic/selfish/painful Darwinian features but also holly and glorious ones: The relationship mother-child during pregnancy is crucial for the growth of trust, the very stuff each of us and society are made of.
I am keen to know your opinion about this view on evolution.
It may be helpful to provide a broad outline of Gregory’s teaching and show which of these may be seen as compatible with a general view of biological evolution, and which are not:
- He states that Gen 1 deals with all of humanity, and the divine image; he shows humans have animalistic/material attributes, and also intelligence/spiritual attributes. This may be viewed (for those who have such a need) as compatible with biological evolution.
- Adam and Eve are particular and are placed in a sacred place to enable them to seek from/eat the tree of life. IF they chose eternal life, reproduction, says St Gregory, would not require sexual activity (more like angels). Since they erred and chose the fruit of good and evil, they became like the rest of humanity and reproduced with pain and suffered hardships. This is NOT compatible with the current evolutionary views.
- Gregory then considers the importance of the divine image, and shows humanity could use reason and intellect to understand the spiritual (and obey God), and also how the sinful nature results in evil deeds.
- Very broadly, Gregory discusses the soul and how we may understand the resurrection and salvation of humanity from sin, through faith in Christ and God’s Grace.
I cannot fathom how you can make inferences from 2-4 on the immaculate conception, and the sinless nature of Christ - no version of evolution can address these matters.
Nor can I see how evolution deals with the mother-child relationship? Humanity has a history that exemplified love and trust, and also hatred and treachery. This has been the result of human attributes and not biology.
1 Like
Evolution is not invoked nor necessary for the usual Christian claims of the immaculate conception.
Hi Randy!
Many thanks for your ’like’ to my answer. I dare to interpret:
All the ‘I’ in your sentences refer to ‘you’, Randy, and not someone who is not ‘you’.
The ordinary fact that each of us again and again utters a sentence beginning with ‘I’ is, in fact, a most amazing fact!
It reveals that we profoundly believe to have a personal identity which remains unchanged in all the changes we undergo in life.
When I am awake I am conscious of my personal identity.
But ‘I am’ also when ‘I am deprived’ of consciousness while ‘I am sleeping’.
So where does my personal identity come from?
Who is sustaining me in being, so that I can claim ‘I am’?
In my view atheism is sort of denial to be someone, it means to choose to be none, remain without name forever.
God-deniers likely don’t know what they are choosing in the end.
1 Like
Are you questioning that evolution deals with pregnancy?
Consider all the processes going on during the time the child develops inside the mother: haven’t they been the result of biology?
When you mean mother-child relationship, I assume you mean the PSYCHOLOGY of that relationship?
Evolution deals with biological processes and systems. And naturally, the biological system of Tigers dealing with their offspring is different from the biological system of Lions or of Chimpanzees.
Some animals evolve into a broadly social system … because evolution has shaped their tolerance of other members of their species in close proximity.
Tigers live alone because it appears that their biological system leaves them pretty aggravated when in close proximity to members of their species (except when mating drives or parenting drives are high enough to temporarily override this “aggro” response)!
1 Like
The biological processes and systems going on during pregnancy rely on evolved mechanisms [see e.g.: here].
The mother-child relationship during pregnancy consists of both psychological and biological processes intimately related. In this period the subconscious attitude of reliance and trust is forged. This attitude is basic for human flourishing.
Additionally, the fact that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, dwelled for 9 months in the womb of a woman reveals that God was interested in this kind of gestation and planned it since the beginning of creation.
In conclusion:
“Darwinian evolution” cannot be considered complete: Evolution does not involve only selfish Darwinian frameworks but also holy and glorious ones. Evolution prepared the flesh the Word of God became. In this flesh Jesus Christ assumed all the suffering of humanity and creation, as we remember tomorrow on Good Friday, also the suffering caused by coronavirus we experience these days. However, the last word is not death but resurrection: Happy Easter to all the readers of the thread!
1 Like
Happy Easter everyone here. I am amazed that this thread is still running despite the threat of immanent closure - unlike some that are set to close in 10 years. You definitely were not in for the 5minute argument Argument - Monty Python - YouTube
Evolution actually eliminates selfish frameworks unless they are system compatible. As I explained elsewhere,survival fitness is the ability to love thy neighbour like thyself, e.g. those you call your own like siblings,parents or children. This way it develops complex interactive systems with high complexity, interdependency and redundancy. The problem of sin has always been the assumed selfishness of the self aware, manifested in the act of rejecting authority over the self in the fall.
The heritability of sin comes from the procreation as a selfish act. For a man to be born free if sin does not mean to be born against the will of man, but in obedience to the will of God. In Jesus this would have been fulfilled in Mary being impregnated by a roman soldier with the intention of her and the child to be killed by her own folks if she did not kill herself before hand. Modern Society still believes that in those cases at least the child is worth killing as it does not comply with human wishful existence, and that even without the problem of living under military occupation where those acts are a weapon against the oppressed population, as shown for example in the Kossovo conflict Rape victims' babies pay the price of war | World news | The Guardian
.
To marry a pregnant woman and rear a child that was clearly not conceived in marriage under such circumstances was truly an act of turning the word of God flesh,e.g. the command to love thy neighbour like thyself". It clearly would have needed the visitation of the wife and husband by the holy spirit in order to do so and if such an explanation of how the word of God turned flesh is offensive to us or feels it would “devalue” Jesus we should as ourself “why”. Is it because it does not agree with our wishful thinking? Would it devalue Mary as being a victim of rape opposed to the recepticle of an act of magic? Would we think God cruel to use such a brutal method for creating his son instead of adoring his work of magic in the fact that his word can turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope. And if that conception story would be too gruesome for us to accept, than why would we find the way God allowed Jesus to be killed acceptable - in fact even required to satisfy Gods need? No wonder that atheist community has a field day when debating us on the God of our wishful thinking.
So I wish us all a reflective Easter whilst in lockdown. May we all reflect on Christ’s way to finish with a song. In a situation that looked so gloom he still encouraged us to sing a song. Whilst a lot of people think of “always look at the bright side of life” Jesus was way ahead of them, but in their religiophobia they just could not see it. Psalm 22 was a much more sombre choice appropriate to the seriousness of the situation to spell out that even if we think God has forsaken us, it is only because we do not understand his ways, but that when we will, it will lead us to praise him for generations to come. And that is the truly bright side, to be thankful to God and live in him again.
1 Like
Thanks Marvin for joining again the thread and thus contributing to that “it is still running”!
Yes, Psalm 22 looks like the script of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. It is amazing that Jesus on the Cross prays this Psalm 22 to describe his innermost feeling of being forsaken for this very Psalm also reveals where we can get strengthen to overcome suffering and dread, even in the stress of death:
Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
It is during gestation in our mother’s womb that our unconscious is formed to trust in God and cast on Him unshakably.
And it is really amazing that in the moment were Jesus is dying praying Psalm 22, the mother who carried him in her womb is just near the cross. And even more amazing that Jesus transforms the mother-child relationship between Mary and him, into a mother-child relationship between Mary and John, the disciple he loved (i.e.: each of us).
Psalm 22 confirms that pregnancy provides the biological basis for the attitude of reliance and trust upon our mother and, through her, upon God. In other words:
Gestation is the masterwork of evolution !
1 Like
Marvin, I, for one, am so glad this thread has run for an unusually long time. For me, the debate between @AntoineSuarez and @GJDS has been especially enlightening, but your latest post here expresses a view that I have long held as being the only way to truly reconcile my Faith in both science (especially in evolution) and in a benevolent God. It seems so unorthodox, however, that I am surprised to see it expressed on this forum.
It is not obvious that evolution gives humans a useful lens through which we view the true nature of humankind. Language and Scripture allowed the wisdom of our ancestors to construct a moral code that can guide us to a better life. But an optimal interpretation of that Scripture demands that it take into account the new truth that science reveals. The variety of interpretations given by the contributors to this Form certainly bears this out.
Darwinian evolution was first seen only as competition, “red in tooth and claw” (Tennyson). The scientist, Lynn Margulis, was the first to emphasize that, some 2 billion years ago, the beginning of all multi-cellular life depended upon cooperation–the synergy that we now see as mitochondria powering each cell in our bodies. Certainly we should not blame the authors of Genesis for proposing an instantaneous creation of Adam & Eve and providing them with a fixed User Manual (moral code). These authors had the wisdom to see that we humans had the potential of being Images of our Creator, and therefor, if created instantaneously, we must have Fallen. A belief in gradual evolution replaces the Fall with the view that we humans must struggle to replace the selfish component of evolution with the cooperative. We can see this in the method of sexual reproduction–establishing marriage as a conduit for expressing unselfish love instead of mere lustful pleasure. The Immaculate Conception is the Christian way of expressing Mary’s entry into this world. Most Christians think that Jesus’ entry into this world was miraculous–otherwise he would be illegitimate, a term we humans invented and use in derogatory fashion.
I hope God sees it differently. A few of my closest, most beloved relations were conceived outside of marriage. I cannot believe that my ability to love outstrips God’s.
stay well,
Al Leo
I fully agree, and Richard Dawkins seems to agree as well:
“I very much hope that we don’t revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we’re here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. […] Now, you are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. That’s exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live.” [Dawkins’ quotation here].
Albert, here you get along with Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604)! In his Exposition on the book of blessed Job, Gregory states:
“Scriptura in aliquo modo cum legentibus crescit ” (the Holy Scriptures somehow grows together with its readers).
Scripture grows when we read it asking new questions in the light of science and in particular evolution.
And the other way around, I dare to complete: by looking at evolution through the lens of the moral code Scripture reveals us, we understand better why evolution worked the way it worked.