For context, I’m not defending a literal reading. See my comments to Richard. Thanks.
1 Like
Yeah… one should avoid telling other people what they believe.
The story of Cain and Abel? You don’t think there should be any consequences for murder???
I certainly don’t think Genesis 3 is about mistakes deserving divine retribution. It is about consequences and God’s efforts to keep our self-destructive habits from destroying all of our potential. The toil part was about learning that blaming others doesn’t help anything. And the childbearing part was about preserving the seriousness of parenthood.
Thanks
My Ha’pence worth
God is the creator of humankind, by design (The exact definition of in God’s image may be debatable)
God does not control us, we are free to make a choice, but must face the consequences of that choice.
It is our cognisance that threw us out of paradise. Ignorance really is bliss but that is no longer an option.
You might decide there is a mandate for male supremacy but I am not going to promote it.
There are grounds for the sanctity of marriage.
Any thoughts about the heredity of Adam are aimed at Judaism and may be accepted within that context. Science (Genetics) would suggest that two people could not spawn a nation let alone the whole human race. (Introducing Nephalim or other demi-Gods is pushing the boat too far for me)
Suggesting that God’s use of animal fur for clothing is a direct indication about sacrificing is also one step beyond my theology (But I will accept it as possible)
Richard
These are empty words which are ultimately incoherent. If we are created by design then we are only what God made us to be and He is responsible for everything. It is like saying computers are free to make their own choices. How is it free when we are only making the choices He designed us to make.
And the evidence doesn’t support this idea anyway. The evidence tells us God played a different role in our creation than that of a machine designer. I really cannot understand this insistence contrary to the evidence on such an outdated understanding which isn’t even logically consistent.
Biological heredity from Adam indeed doesn’t make much sense. But this isn’t the most important type of heredity involved.
Only if you keep God out of evolution.
AI is almost proven so maybe your view here is as out of date as you claim mine is?
Besides, there is no need to comare our creation with that of a computer.
I am sorry but your logic for this escapes me.
If you are going to start the discussion about what constitutes free will (Been there, done that) maybe you should go elsewhere.
That is probably the definition of sovereignty that has been promoted by other members (no names no pack drill)
In terms of creation, I do not see how it could be any other way? Creation has parameters. Whether they are necessary for it to function or part of a grand design is probably irrelevant outside theology. The result will almost certainly be the same. We have choices within the limitations of our world. I cannot choose to fly without an aeroplane (or similar) because that choice is not available to me.
Richard
Incorrect. Even with God involved, the watchmaker God still doesn’t fit – this is not the way we design machines.
So for you it is still free will when God has made all the choices of any significance already.
I do see how it could be another way. First God creates the universe to operate according to the laws of nature. But then the laws are designed to support the process of life whereby dynamic structures operating according to these laws are governed by the choices they make (which being nonlinear are not determined by pre-existing conditions). Thus life develops according to its own choices rather than by design… things growing and learning on their own in response to environmental changes. But that doesn’t exclude the possibility of teachers in that environment, so the involvement of God is not excluded. It just changes God’s role from that of a designer to that of shepherd and teacher. It is what you would expect if what God was seeking in the creation of the world is relationships with others.
That is only half of scripture. (if that)
Creation precedes Christ by a few billion years. Before you can shepherd you need to breed the sheep. Are you a sheep?
(Think carefully before you jump at that one)
And that is not scripture at all. Whether you like it or Not Genesis claims God as sovereign and creator. it would appear that you and @Dale are at opposite sides of a very long spectrum. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
Richard
Breeding sheep is not design, any more than teaching students and raising children is design.
Are you?
Sheep have 48 chromosome segments which are the same as ours. But sheep do not have language or the mind which derives from language. Metaphors in parables comparing sheep and goats are little more than literary devices. Doesn’t change the fact that God’s relationship with living things is more like that of a shepherd than a watchmaker.
It is a spectrum that supports evolution completely.
Probability means that it may not be in the middle at all.
Nicely ducked. But I was thinking more on the lines of
Under the protection of the Sheperd? Or blindly following without thought or understanding?
Maybe a bit of both.
Trying to box God is never a good idea.
Neither of yours are accurate (IMHO)
And there I was thinking you understood scripture. Never mind.
Perhaps you don’t need to.
I think I said that scripture was a guide rather than a criterion. When you have figured out How God can be both sovereign and disinterested bystander let me know.
I guess He was lucky humanity was created at all for HIm to shepherd.
Richard
I certainly hope so.
I don’t think so. If I follow something it is with considerable thought and with eyes wide open.
It’s not about God. It is about the nature of living things.
Would that be because you realize that the spectrum you described had nothing to do with scripture? You defined the spectrum as one with me at one end and Dale at the other and both fully support evolution.
Correct. I don’t study scripture out of need. I do so out of interest only.
I don’t see how God is either. I don’t see why God would create the universe in order to be sovereign. And I don’t see why God would create the universe in order to watch. He created the universe for relationships – which means He was actively involved in everything but with no need to control anything.
As far as weeds go, that’s just a term we came up with to refer to plants growing in an area we don’t like. All plants are native somewhere and in their native habitat they play specific ecological roles. Also what one considers a weed another may consider it’s very beautiful. Like the “ horrid “ thistle that most people can’t stand. It’s a biannual and its first user growth is just their low growing very spiny foliage that grass even 4 inches tall will cover. Then the next year a 2-3 foot tall pink and yellow bloom takes off. Where I live a lot of people don’t like it. I personally think it’s really beautiful. It’s also the host plant for the Calephelis virginiensis (little metalmark butterfly). Those caterpillars sr worst of the high caterpillar diet of American birds when feeding their chicks which in turn grow up into birds that eats fruits and disperse seeds through their waste creating more habitat. Later on I’ll read back through the thread.
Yes, that explains everything.
Unfortunately that is not how I view Scripture.which causes automatic disagreement.
Your view of God is not scriptural.and neither are much of your theolgical ideas.
Although I have no problem with what you believe, it does make conversations a little difficult.and almost pointless.
However, just to clarify
The sovereignty of God is very scriptural. Whether you approve of it or Not it is a central part of Scripture. God is both creator and ruler of all He made. The fact that He let go is another matter.
As for Him being a bystander. That is not scripture but it is His role in Evolutionary theory There is no place for Him even to have a relationship let alone any influence.
Scripture claims that God created man in His own image.
Evolution claims that man was made from a multitude of random deviations over a long period of time. The precise form of man was governed by adaption and survival of the fittest not by any design. Therefore, even though I am not promoting any sort of YEC or literal view of Genesis I cannot accept Evolutnary theory as it stands (without God). And cannot see how anyone who believes Scripture can accept it either.
Richard
I don’t think your view of God is very scriptural, nor your theological ideas. I have seen a LOT of picking and choosing on your part – deciding which parts of the Bible to take seriously and which not. But that is par for the course for the entire Christian spectrum. We all make our choices and understand the Bible as best we can. Perhaps my perspective is not for you, but yours is definitely not for me.
Sure, but it is also extremely relative, for absolute sovereignty is not very scriptural. No, God does not always get what He wants. That is the difference between theism and pan(en)theism.
That is the much bigger difference between us. You start with the Bible and decide whether to accept the findings of science. I start with science and decide whether to accept the Bible and Christianity. And while you say no, I say yes. But then many, like Dale, who start with the Bible say yes to science, and many who start with science say no to the Bible and Christianity.
I do not reject al science. In fact there is only one part of science I question
Richard
From the other thread
The Christian understanding in line with evolution thus sees that man was made from a relationship between living things and God. It means learning and adapting in response to changes in the environment which included a spiritual God, who is seeking not some image defined by human vanity, but for qualities which would enhance a relationship with God.
I was banned from the other thread
You will have to define your deist watchmaker.
That puts Evolution under the direct control of God. That is not Evolutionary theory. There is no place for guidance in evolutionary theory.
You cannot have a relationship with God without
- cognisance
- identifying God
Neither of which become apparent in evolution.
Evoluution has never been able to show (or explain) the emergence of cognisance. I wonder if there is a DNA code for it?
Admittedly the biblical version is a bit far-fetched.
Richard
Where do you get this delusion that sheep are under the direct control of the shepherd.
I am reminded of Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep. He at least does not share your delusion.
It is not mine. see Wikipedia.
Of course not. There is no place for God in any scientific theory. There is no God in the theory of buoyancy, kinematics, gravity, electric fields, magnetism, heat, light, sound, pressure, nuclear fission or fusion, chemistry, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, field theory, relativity, etc… Once again, you sound like you are stuck in the middle ages, which is the only time (or earlier) we would see people expecting God in such explanations.
Now who is putting God in a box?
God is capable of a relationship with anything.
What is true is our capacity for responding to God is certainly enhanced by many things which are a product of evolution. But everything doesn’t have to come from evolution, because God speaks. And once we have the ability to hear Him and understand, so much more is possible in our relationship with Him.
Most people who speak of this have never given a clear definition of it. The dictionary defines it as awareness. I see awareness in the simplest cell – both awareness of its surroundings and awareness of itself. It is a necessary part of the process of life because that process includes both self-maintenance and responding to the environment. For this reason, the origin of “cognizance” is outside the scope of evolution and must be found in the origin of life from before evolution – in things like prebiotic and chemical evolution.
Evolution certainly has given plenty of explanations for the expansion of cognizance in the development of the nervous system and the human use of language.
1 Like
You never watched one man and his dog?
Jesus said “The sheep hear my voice and follow”
The whole idea is that they do as the shepherd wants, they follow, controlled, (if voluntarily in Christianity). Any form of shepherding (herding being the obvious clue) involves control.
Yeah, the lost one was the one who wandered off! (out of control!)
Sorry, you will have to do better than this if you are going to show that the relationship with God does not mean conforming to His practices (IOW relinquishing control to Him)
Why do all scientists do this? Throw in completely erroneous and noncomparable science!
Evolution is not like any other science.
Cognisance
Awareness is a little vague. In Star Trek TNG trial of data as sentient) it was put as self awareness which might be a little closer. Adam knew he was naked. But it is more than that.
It is the ability to make an informed choice as opposed to just working on instinct. Biblically it is the ability to distinguish good and evil, the beginning of morality. (Nakedness being considered immoral)
It is very difficult to decide whether any other creature has this sense. Especially as the definition of good and evil is not clearly defined. Whether it is natural or learned is also difficult to discern. Most children appear to be amoral in terms of identifying what might be acceptable behaviour or not. I guess most creature are either self-reliant or “for the good of the group” but that is not morality. Yet a mother self-sacrificing?
All creatures communicate, and some of it is quite complex. Does that make them cognisant?
Unfortunately much of this is beyond the basic parameters of evolution.
I am sorry but you do not seem to understand the incongruity of a Godless system being created (and used) by God.
I guess we have no way to know whether God can or does have relationships with other creatures. (Traditionally not,of course)
It would seem to me that evolution will eventually produce a dominant species, but the exact shape and form would seem to be as random as the system itself. We could be sentient reptiles (Cardassians?) In terms of evolution there is no reason why not.
Hence why evolution (without God) is incompatible with the bible. Humanity is declared as a deliberate creation.
Richard
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.