??? Why would you think that angels are referring to bacteria ??? That makes no sense! I said angels. I meant angels. No, angels are not bacteria. I never even heard of anyone who thought something like that!
The angels are the result if God simply makes them Himself. We are result when we had to make ourselves. If God makes them then they would simply be what God made them to be. If we make ourselves then that is going to take a very very very long time. We started as something even simpler than a bacteria and then we hade to learn how to do everything. With angels, God simply gave them all the power and knowledge they have. But we had to learn everything for ourselves.
The result is not independent of the means.
Why is that?
I certainly thought no such thing.
Followed? The laws of physics lead? The laws of physics are simply mathematical rules about how some forms of energy can change into other forms of energy. Under the right conditions they can lead to the formation of self-organizing systems. Self-organizing means they do not follow but make their own decisions and become what they choose.
More than anything in the world, I’d love just ONE example of that self organization and the conditions under which it disobeyed our laws of physics. I can’t wait to hear this!
Preceded yes, but not in the evolution of life on the earth. I never said any such thing. The Bible says they are spirits not physical, and they have always been thought to precede the creation of the world.
Who said they disobeyed the laws of physics.
Oh, I see, you think it is a choice between being controlled by the laws of nature and disobeying the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are not a causally closed system and they do not dictate everything that happens. Self-organizing systems are nonlinear and they generate bifurcation points which are completely unpredictable.
I objected to your claim that the evolution has followed the laws of physics but that doesn’t equal a claim that they have disobeyed the laws of physics. And I don’t think I was nitpicking semantics because of the context of the statement you made, as if “following” the laws of nature meant no freedom.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
45
All of which demonstrates, as ever, that there is absolutely nothing unnatural about eternal, infinite nature.
Regardless of what cutesied ANE myths we’re told in our bedtime stories with Jesus as the cherry on top at Sunday school.
How would one tell an educated grown up what the connection is?
Thanks! What a switch, at least as I understand it from the one G.O. wedding I was at. My husband’s cousin married a G.O. man, and I’ll tell you, once the priests were done, there was no question, that marriage was iron clad “until death did them part” which was way too early.
It’s not easy to tell all the time, in what spirit questions are posed or responses are given. I reread your OP, and maybe I missed it, bit it sounded like you were describing your own convictions, and arguing hard for them.
I feel I give an annoying amount of meta-data about questions I ask or comments I make, but I don’t know how else to make the thought context of them clear enough so as not to appear combative. I think there are a few people here with those skills. Not me. So y’all are stuck with my footnotes and long explanations, if anyone cares to read what I write.
We are all way too skilled at creating enemies from people who either simply disagree or have a different conception of the matter at hand. It’s obvious that many participants here have developed their conversation skills in contexts where “discussion” is equivalent to “contest” or “fight” where there must be winners or losers. They have a combat-based concept of interaction, which is often also used (most unfortunately) in apologetic “discussions” that devolve into lobbing of stupid, defensive comments that carry nothing forward but bad will.
“En garde” could be their moniker.
I’m not (usually) looking to (fail to) win, but to learn and gain understanding, and to consider ideas in a community.
Thanks, @Bucky_Wood. My “style” is deliberate and the result of many years of discussion based lit, theory and Bible study classes. You just don’t get to come into those to “set people straight” and if you have a strong conviction about an idea, or are confronting one, you had better do it diplomatically and thoughtfully.
I prefer a “Construction Model” (yeah, I just made that up) of discussion that is looking to build understanding, if not agreement. Tools, not weapons, can be considered – things like definitions, articles, books – used to come closer to agreement that we are talking about the same thing, even if we don’t agree about our conclusions on the thing.
A few times, I have been blunt to the point of harshness with people who have come into the Forum, accusing us all of heresy, and every other sin, horrified that we “compromised christians” would hang out with tax collectors and sinners, and using dung as their stinking support. But in those instances, I have directed them to go learn first. Since the most recent group has been silent, they have either gone back to where they came from or are lurking silently.
Of course some were, and some were not. E.g. I absolutely believe (and think science supports) that there was intelligent design in our origins, with factors necessary other than “creation from soup”. But the time issue is just a thought to ponder, not a conviction already held. And I state several assumptions about what a typical Christian might believe without any attempt to apply percentages to them.
It feels better to me to utilize what we believe to be true scientifically regarding evolution. Of course certain assumptions must exist where science is lacking or ill defined or prematurely ignorant. I do not challenge anyone’s strong belief for the purpose of making them repent from that belief, but I have no problem challenging it for the purpose of asking for consistencies in their thought process. When provided, they help my thinking as well.
Just another question about what you inferred from my OP. I closed with: If we are the focus of God’s sovereign grace, why did He wait so long for us to become relevant? And if we can find no logic for it, should it threaten anyone’s faith?
Do you not think that I was simply asking for other opinions about this? And wanting to hear some logical explanation?
Thanks for expounding!
I went through and highlighted some bits that feel to me like an Apologist’s Snap Trap. Lots of set up and “if/then” relationships that feel like someone wants to lead me to a conclusion they have already drawn for me. I’m wondering, if that might be how some of the other respondents read it, too.
As a Christian, I find it really sad that I have a hard time trusting what feels like contemporary apologetics, which I also find very closely aligned with Debate Team levels of critical thinking. “If these points I’ve just made are true, then my conclusion is also undeniably true.” So, I’m wary. I’m jaded. I don’t automatically trust someone’s intentions with a post that has so many potential red flags.
At the risk of sounding sexist, I’ll say that the Apologist Snap Trap that I’m resisting (which may not be your intent at all) is a particularly, although not exclusively, pushy, Western male model that I have seen closely tied to big egos. I usually just side step things that feel like this set up. As a woman in theologically conservative churches, I can just pretend I don’t know what the deal is, fly under the radar, and bring up something related to cooking or children or the Proverbs 31 Woman. I’m off the hook. As a woman with a long academic background, who studies broadly, I would be eager to find someone else to interact with.
I’m relieved that we’ve had this discussion. It’s a good reminder that MY trust issues are not reflective of someone else’s intent. So, thanks for pursuing the questions.
That makes me wonder further about that point. If you took my word for it that I did NOT intend to “trap” anyone into some indefensible viewpoint, why would anyone be reluctant to pontificate toward an answer. Would it be because to express anything other than standard dogma doesn’t feel like right (Christian) thing to do?
On the other hand, if it was intended to be a trap, what would be the insinuated answer that would cast poorly upon the respondent? My guess is this: To admit to the 99.995% time lag for humans might suggest that God’s role was only to get life going, and it did not matter what or how it evolved to Him. And to say that would make the respondent feel less Christian. I note that many of the comments received suggested that any assumption that there was something special about humans was anthropocentric. I assume then that those folks would not think that God had humans in mind when He created life.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
51
If God didn’t have humans in mind when He created life, why did He create it? Did He just hope that something sapient would turn up?
PS I just don’t understand. Life is unnatural in origin but natural after that? Surely that means it’s unnatural everywhere right? I mean if you make it and walk away in the hope it will do sapience, you can’t be sure right? So you’d make it on trillions of worlds, right? To be sure, right? And wouldn’t you have done that in infinite universes from eternity? Unless you just waited for eternity of course. As rationality is meaningless.
Is there a question in all this you would like me to answer? It seems like you may have provided the answers I am constrained to choose between.
Maybe I am missing something here.
I think we should extend the questions: why should it take billion years for stars to from? why should we have such a large universe? why did God take this approach?
And I am reminded of the Eastern Orthodox view of angelic beings rebelling against God and causing so much damage to the creation.
I begin to think on these matters from the view of time as we perceive it, and how I would view it if I were god. If as a god, I did not make time to be within the fabric of my creation (eg as in the spiritual realm) than I would create accordingly, whereas if I decided to a space-time frame that we have, I may enjoy lengthy periods that display great beauty and energy/dynamics/phenomena.
But then again, I am not a god, so if I were to create anything, it would take me some time and effort.
I’ll try again to tease out a question from slide 50 that I might be able to answer with my own thoughts. It’s something like this:
“Would your perception of an apologetic nature of my OP questions cause you to distrust my intention behind it, because you felt it was leading you to reveal unchristian views?”
No. The red flags I perceived were my gut reaction based on my own experience with similarly-framed “discussion starters” that are intended to force the participant into a certain vein of thinking, and then use some yet-to-be revealed trump card to demonstrate the participant’s error and attempt to force the particpant to concede to some proposition that makes the asker at least feel he (or she) has “won a convert.”
Stylistically, these set ups often include lots of “if/then”s, used as a tool to guide thinking as well as to prune contradictory information or ideas. While you were probably seeking precision in the way you framed your question, it felt like a set up to me. Unless we’re in a math or computer science environment, questions set up like this nearly always do (feel like a set up).
As to why I would venture to pontificate?
I have protections here that I don’t have sitting across a table from someone - oh, say, like a pastor - who might be trying to figure out if I”m fish (ikthus) or foul (that’s a deliberate spelling error).
Someone here annoys me enough, I can avoid them in a variety of ways.
I’m getting used to my position as a Christian being subtly questioned by Christians I know personally. In spite of my holding to orthodox Christian beliefs, I am well aware that being politically and academically “different” from most people I had worshiped with made me suspect - especially after I opened my mouth. While I feel the sting, I also don’t care (that much). People who really know me, know what I am. I have no fear of being “exposed” as a heretic or unbeliever or anything else here, among people I intereact with but probably will never actually know (this side of Eternity, of course).
Although I prefer less guidance in how I think about and answer questions, I thought the core question (as I understand it) was interesting enough to engage with. As I mentioned above, if it became a debate of some kind, I would drop the whole thing and leave it for the debators.
I hope I was able to provide you with a useful answer, in spite of my refusal to answer it as originally framed.
Good point…My premise was that we were the ultimate focus. If we were not, then life and evolution are nothing more than the natural progression from the unnatural occurrence of life created by God. So stars were likely not the focus, so they are simply participants in this play, clearly important in order that we have elements necessary later on. But if we were His inevitable outcome, and He could have sped the process up, why didn’t He? That was just a hypothetical supposition on my part.
But it did take quite a bit of time and effort, even by God! And we are here only in the final 4 seconds of a 24 hour day of life on earth.
You are right about that! Angels are important to GO worship. They are referenced many times, and are even ranked in a 9-position hierarchy! And 7 Archangels. But I think it was a very few “fallen angels” that joined with Satan to do damage?
It truly was informative. I now have a better grasp of the nuanced interpretation(s) of a question as proposed initially. Thanks for “reformulating” my question…I often wonder what it says about my thought process when someone else can ask MY question better than me!
And my takeaway from all the commentary about “Why…did He wait so long?” is that time is not the issue, and thus I have asked the wrong question at the outset. Nevertheless, it still is in my mind, and I can only conclude that time is immaterial. I do NOT conclude that we were not God’s focus. So, as an attorney might say (I am not, btw), the facts in evidence are:
God created life, such that evolution would ultimately create a sapient creature called human
Life evolved into us, finally after 99.995% of time elapsed
God knew it would happen
The time it took matters not
So my question at the beginning is not relevant to His process.
That was implicit, I think, in my question. It was posed in a different way though. Either we were His ultimate goal (then it took an awful long time) or we were not (we just happened along the way and it did not matter to Him).
Not to my mind. The “unnatural” part is the creation 3.8 Bya. The natural part is all that has happened since. If we were his object, then sapience was an endpoint. If not, then only the fact of life itself was the goal.
That presupposes that it was only His “hope”, not His certainty, doesn’t it? If He knew the outcome, He only needed to do it once.
And I get your point. Your logic, like mine, must make certain assumptions and stipulations, many of which may or may not be true, but nevertheless we are entitled to pose the questions as we see fit, right?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
58
It’s obviously the latter or reality is not amenable to reason at all.
You disagree with yourself there. That’s exactly what I said. Did neither of course.
Not my presupposition. My logic is nothing like yours. If you want to pose meaningless questions, fine.
Thanks for taking the time and energy to read what I wrote.
My one direct response to your original question and restatement is that time is not finished yet. The Apostles expected to see Jesus’ return before the end of their lives. We don’t know when that will happen, and evolution just keeps rolling along. Who’s to say we’re the pinacle? The final chapter hasn’t yet been shown to us.
I think for me, this question was forever answered by Richard Mouw when attending the one BioLogos conference in Baltimore a few years back. He simply pointed out that God delighted in creation apart from humanity. Without humans around, looking at creation God said “hey, I like this” (paraphrasing both God and Mouw :P). So in the same sense that me as a scientist can delight in creation, independent of any humans, it was an entirely amazing thing to be part of creation without any humans around. One might even call such a world “good.”