Ah, so taking a meaing that is obvious is shallow is it?
I have been discussing with @mitchellmckain fro dsome time now. I think we undwrstand each other, and admit differences.
The point here is that he is claiming that Science will eventually solve the creation of life mystery. And that it will be through “natural” or demonstable means, and not a “supernatural” (That he doe not really beleive in) act.
We then have to weigh this against his “watchmaker” model whereby if God “designed” the result then God is manipulating or dctating. He has cleary stated that his beleive is that God would form relationships with any creature who is able to . Humanity is just the one that formed. (He may already have relationships that we can not see or discern with othes forms on this earth)
IOW as far as he is concerned what is important is the relationship formed. He sees no need, in fact seems to reject, any notion of God “creating”, or deliberately forming anything. On that basis, my understanding is accurate
I am reding in nothing other tha what he has already revealed.
Thanks–great article that I had not read yet! A quote of Bonhoeffer from that article:
Weizsäcker’s book The World View of Physics is still keeping me very busy. It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.
It wold appear tha locus prima is not a phrase that is in common usage. A quick look up on Google got no results.
If you are claiming that the Gennesis example takes precidence I would like to know why.
It is obvious that the general biblical understanding is physical, so you appear to be doing the old trick of taking the view you want.
In terms of relevance to my beleifs it is not so much whether we look like God as whether we look as God intended. That, of course, comes into conflict with Sceintific evolutionary understanding. Oh, dear, never mnd.
Besides, I did say that is how I took it, and so that is my perogative and therefore beyond your criticism .or even mockery.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you think our physical form is not relevant? (prefferably using Scripture) other than your dogmatism about the precise translation of Genesis, of course. Why do you think God does not care about how we physically look?
Interesting.
It refers to the primary and/or principal reference to something in a set of literature.
It’s the first and therefore (almost invariably) defining instance.
Only if you come to it with that bias – I didn’t see physicality in any of those passages, and I was trying to find it. But the ANE understanding makes it clear that physical form is not the primary aspect of form/image though it may be more significant with the term “likeness”.
A topic that theologians have gone 'round and 'round on for millennia!
It’s not necessarily not relevant, just not specified. I suppose one could argue that the specific human form communicates the character of God better than any other, but when reduced to its functional elements any upright bipedal laterally symmetric tool-using sensing and thinking form would work.
That’s not even involved, unless somehow our looks better express God’s character than any other form, possibly better than any other possible form.
One night over beer and peanuts during an ice storm (we wore crampons to get to the bar) we argued over whether having so much bare skin is an attribute that expresses God’s character – what if we were more felinoid, or perhaps sciurrian (Am I remembering the squirrel genus right?), or just hairy like our simian cousins? I ended up switching sides a lot . . . .
I’m sorry if I am being repetitive on a point which has been addressed, but …
When one speaks of “man”, is that about (1) each individual human, as an individual, or (2) “human kind” that is the species Homo sapiens (or maybe the genus, or some other collective)?
I trust that few will deny that the origin of (1), each one of us, is well explained by science, including genetics (which says that our genetic makeup involves a chance mixture of our ancestors’ genetics), This is not a straw man, for in the 18th century many intelligent, knowledgeable and serious students of nature promoted preformationism.
No it is not accurate because I don’t accept your black and white treatment of this which you have always had from day one declaring that science is Godless (and thus by implication all scientist are atheistic enemies of God), that it has to be either design or no creation at all. But I refute this to say, relationship is how living things are ALWAYS created – because that is what it MEANS to be alive. Living organisms learn, make choices, grow, and develop (i.e. evolve). And thus they are participants in their own creation. ALWAYS! But they NEVER do this in a vacuum. It is always in a relationship to their environment, which can include farmers, shepherds, teachers, and parents… and as some of us believe… God.
Science will show how life came into existence the same way evolution showed how the species came into existence. But your idea that this excludes God from the creation of life is just as bogus as your idea that evolution excludes God from the creation of the species.
There is a difference between supernatural and magical. God is supernatural so any involvement of God is supernatural. But this does not require God to break the laws of nature He created, as those who insist on magical explanations insist. Frankly the real issue here is a power struggle between medieval clergy who demand the authority to dictate how things are done by God and thus demands that science shut up and be silent ignoring all the evidence God sends us from the earth and sky.
No. That is your own alteration of what I said to fit your rhetoric. What I said was that God would have a relationship with all living things. AND that means God would be a participant in the creation of those living things the same as God is a participant in the creation of living things on the earth.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:89, topic:53858”]
Why couldn’t the natural processes described by science be the deliberate actions of God?
[
Ypu really need to ask that?
You know what I think of ToE. It hasn’t changed.
IOW the “natural” processes do not reflect the charachter of Gpd (See Romans 1)
So which is it? Do the natural processes reflect God’s character or not?
Or are you deciding for God what His character should be, and then denying natural processes that don’t fit your criteria for what God’s character should be?
The ideas of God as meglomaniac, purist, hard hearted, controlling and wrathful? Maybe evolution doesn’t reflect these. But the loving humble God who sees greatness only in being a servant of servants? I think evolution does reflect such a God as this. When it is about loving and serving rather than controlling then you would seek a relationship with those who have a life of their own making their own decisions. You would only seek to help and serve them rather than take over their lives making their decisions for them. To be sure, life and making your own choices is hard, and many complain accusing God, saying they never asked for such a thing. But that is what you must do if you are seeking a relationship of love, for there is no love when you are simply in control of everything. That may be easier, death is easier than life. That may be what some who call themselves Christian are offering, but it doesn’t interest me in the slightest. And I don’t think that is what the Bible is offering either. John 10:10 “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
This is something that those who deny animals died before the Fall miss: animal death shows the character of the God Who lays down His life for others.
Would you agree that death is a natural part of life? For without death the planet would become overgrown with life. Does this mean death is a part of God’s character? I would say it is. Since everything is going to die at some point, from bacteria to man, then evolution is just a part of this process.
Also evolution is not survival of the fittest, but the better adapted generate more off spring. So it is actually related to generating more life, not less.
Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is happening all around us in nature. Why is the human sickle cell trait much more common in African areas with endemic malaria? Heterozygotes with the sickle cell allele are more resistant to malarial infections, so the trait spreads in these populations because people without the sickle cell allele die at a higher rate. Why isn’t this allele just as common outside of areas with endemic malaria? Homozygotes with the allele suffer from sickle cell anemia, so they die at a higher rate than those without the trait and heterozygotes. This is happening RIGHT NOW. It is an observable part of nature. This isn’t the only allele I can point to. There are many, just in the human population.
If you are contending that natural selection is not part of God’s character then you are saying nature does not reflect God’s character.
Added map of endemic malaria and distribution of sickle cell alleles:
