Okay if abortion is off topic, puberty must be too. 
2 Likes
@TimothyHicks
If you want to use the phrase āas godsā ā¦ I suppose thatās fine. If you and I agree that āas Godsā does not mean Adam would have been a god in Paradise, then it wonāt bother me.
My earlier reactions and posts were all about the possibility of someone interpreting the nice phrase āas Godsā to mean ābe Godsā.
George Brooks
That could have been what the Serpent was attempting to imply with his words ā¦ But thatās not the truth of what ended up happening. Iām only defining the terms āas godsā as the context defines it. It is an odd definition, Iāll concede your point, and itās the only place where that particular definition is applied ā¦ Still I think āgodsā (or Elohim) was a much more diverse word in that language and culture then it is today. We associate it with supernatural strength and divine powers etc., but simply given the choice to choose good and evil ā¦ Wellā¦ I can see that as being fairly āgod-likeā, if you give it enough thought. In any case thatās less of a take away message ā¦ They sinned, God was both just and merciful in the situation, and they lost the Tree of Life. Thatās the bulk of what I look at.
-Tim
There is considerable discussion in the journals about Hebrew religion - - PRIOR to the rise of monotheism - - being thoroughly engaged with a council of deities ā¦ Yahweh being assigned the Hebrews.
My personal preference is that Elohim is a reference to a dual-gendered being (since I have a pretty difficult time imagining God with a gender).
The idea that choosing between Good and Evil is āgod-likeā leaves me a little āmehā. I think it is HUMAN like. Can dogs and monkeys choose between good and evil? I suppose, depending on the definition, they can. But as long as you keep hyphenating -like ā¦ god-LIKE ā¦ I donāt have any heartburn.
George
I canāt imagine Yahweh having a gender either. True, Jesus Christ was God-Incarnate who was a male human. But Yahweh also came in other forms ā¦ Like a pillar of fire. Itās not like a concrete thing.
Itās interesting how you have the colloquially named āLady Wisdomā in Proverbs 8 ā who was āwith God before the world wasā. But the only reason why itās a āsheā isnāt implying gender. Rather itās more grammatical than anythingā¦ The word for wisdom, according to Hebrew, is a feminine word, and thus the reason for the female pronoun. Perhaps the same is the case for Yahweh? Who knowsā¦
-Tim
1 Like
@marvin
@OldTimer
@Mr.Molinist
First of all we can say that evolution is not driven by violence, because plants evolve and plants are not subject to violence. Also God creates through the Logos and evolution and the Logos is not violent.
The problem is death. People think of death as evil and violent, but it is not. Death is the end of life. Since the Creation is not divine, since it is not eternal, Godās creatures including us will die. While that is not pleasant or nice, it is not evil, because God Who created the universe, created life and death, has created a way to go around death to eternal life, which is made manifest through Jesus Christ.
Darwinian Natural Selection as a separate struggle for survival is wrong. Dawkinsā view of the selfish gene is also wrong. Evolution is based on working with the ecology, not competition against other members of the species.
1 Like
Roger,
That is funny, as you have never seen my wife make a salad.
3 Likes
I appreciated your summary remarks, Roger. Nicely stated!
Yes, Iāve often thought it interesting that those who obsess on āsin brought the first deathsā and āEvolution canāt be true because it is based on death and death was never part of Godās planā always seem to ignore all that planet evolution and the plant death which had nothing to do with āviolence.ā
poor moderators - but then they are a worried about things getting too violent if the subject gets too political - but violence must be okay to mention as it is in the subject line.
Now to talk about the meaning of Genesis and the fall is outside the scope of the question of evolution as it only deals with the formation of the material world. The genesis of consciousness and the realisation of the self as well as concepts such as morality are clearly beyond the scope of evolutionary theory 
The question about evolution driven by violence is a daft one anyhow.
If you consider the alternatives e.g. is evolution driven by violence of love you should immediately realise that it is love, e.g. the coming together of things that are different and if you consider if evolution is driven by death or by survival you see immediately it is survival. If you switch on your brain about survival fitness it becomes immediately apparent that it is not physical strength to suppress others but adaptability to interact with others to keep them alive too, e.g. to love thy neighbour.
If you want to know what drives evolution you should ask your selfabout the oppposite
failed to update and should have wondered about the lack of replies. Looks like we think along exactly the same lines here. I think we had the discussion elsewhere if god creates through death and you would say so as we are reborn through the death of Jesus.
The point were we disagree is your statement that death is the end of life. It is the end of a physical body but it is the restriction of materialist thinking of defining life by the material self. Life is the ability to move matter and energy at will. This will can be encoded in material units via genetic programs or in metaphysical form as in thoughts. In āthy will be doneā manipulation of energy and matter is executed on behalf of that what is alive as it has the ability to manipulate matter and energy. So I hope Jesus is alive in you as well, as is God through him
Roger,
I was thinking about this statement and I concluded that it is factually untrue. Plants are subject to exactly the same violence that animals are. Lightning hitting a tree or an animal is the same violence. A worm eating a leaf or an eye is the same violence. A mechanical reaper cutting down grain is the same violence as cow going to slaughter. Please explain why an algae cell being injested by a animal is less violent that an lion eating a deer?
I agree on that and plants are starving each other as well. However in his other post he quite rightly pointed out the relative perspective of violence , e.g. bringing about the death of others. If death is inevitable anyhow you might as well try to ensure your that your existence was of benefit to others and spread as much love as possible.
Roger, this is the perfect sentence ā¦ as long as long as we use a specific definition for violence.
George
Guess they postulate that Adam and Eve did not eat anything before the fall, not did any of the animals, just living of air and love. Before the realisation of the self they were part of the overall self of nature and death would have been the normal part of life. You only suffer mortality once you are a self thus looking at death as the end of being a self and not a return to the self. So Godās remark: āonce you eat from the tree of selfrealisation you become mortalā was as factual a statement as: āonce you touch the high voltage line you will dieā.
1 Like
Except, in Genesis, it is only by eating the Tree of Life that one becomes immortal.
So the instruction to Adam was really: āā¦ once you eat from the tree [of knowledge] I wonāt let you become immortalā¦ā
George
as you can by eating from the tree of life in Jesus Christ
1 Like
Thank you for your responses. In some sense you are both right, but in the evolutionary sense I am correct. Darwin, as I understand him and makes most sense, describes Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest (using a borrowed phrase that he accepted) as the result of relentless struggle between members of a species for limited resources required for survival.
The biggest problem for this definition of Natural Selection is that it does not fit the classic model that defines Natural Selection in the minds of everyone, which is predation, the life and death struggle of the lion and her prey. The problem with this model is that the lion and prey are not competing for the same resources and are not of the same species. Lions may be competing against other lions, but they compete not as individuals, but as prides. Zebras might be competing against other zebras, but not generally violently. Dawkins is definitely wrong in this respect.
Plants are subject to death. It is my point as an ecological evolutionist that the most successful alleles are able to best use the resources available to them, rather than muscle out competitors, which is the traditional model of Darwinism. Survival is best accomplished by working with other members of the species and other life forms, rather than working against them.
Violence means violent force and plants do not use violent force to compete evolutionally. Plants do produce a large number of seeds to guarantee survival for some, so that some do not germinate and reproduce when the conditions are not right. Plants do outcompete others for light, water, and nutrients, but they so not starve them.
Violence indicates pain, and plants do not have the nerve system to experience pain. They are not sensate.
@Patrick reminded me of Dawkinsā eloquent argument that grasses do not want to be cropped or clipped, even though this is the key to its ecological survival. He really does not explain how he knows this important fact, which is not true.
Darwinās characterization of evolution as the product of āthe war of natureā justifies war as a good way to solve problems, which also is not true. Jihad is not the answer.
1 Like
Roger,
This study says the extinctions were a necessary part of evolution.
Plants arenāt violent but they sure are competitive. Itās a big problem, as a matter of fact.