That is a good question. And did he make us different through evolution or by a unique intervention, i.e. breathing his ruach into us.
1 Like
I think GOD breathed into us (whether by making a special genetic twist in our makeup or literally, it doesnât matter to me) to make us uniquely human.
I think GOD could have and still may enable a kangaroo to fly a 747. He made me so that I can talk. He became a tiny, helpless, beautiful baby boy. I canât understand 99.9999 percent of all there is to know. But, I can sense when someone loves me and His love for me is by far the greatest thing Iâve ever known and I have met people from all over and from every background who know exactly what Iâm talking about and I share these things with others hoping that somehow, someway, you will find Him yourself. I donât want your money. I donât need to know you. I want you to encounter Him and His Love because you will be thrilled out of your mind. Dear GOD
He made the universe. He made all the universes if there are more than one. He made time. He made the raw material from which everything exists.
He made us male and female, gave us some intelligence, the capacity to make choices and He loves us.
To me, the overriding principle, the major force in our universe, the presiding influence over all, the most important thing in life is HIS LOVE for us, for everyone. Even unto death.
2 Likes
I disagree as far as reality goes. Look what happens when we ignore the boundaries reality sets for us. Modern science looks to much like a religion for me to care too much about it.
I guess thatâs why I asked about a particular point in time. I meant that literally.
I did mean literally. I think the story of Adam & Eve is there to give us a defining moment. Whether literal on not, I think we need to know there was an actual moment when God âcreatedâ us in our current form.
Sorry mods. I should have put that all in one post.
Sorry. Didnât answer your question. Yes, of course, there was a specific moment when man became a living soul.
Literally, it was a distinct act or occurrence. Just exactly what He did, I donât know and it makes no difference, not to me. GOD created mankind
Thereâs a difference between reality-set boundaries (like the edge of a cliff), and human-chosen boundaries (like trying to divide humanity into different skin-color races.) The former we ignore at our peril; the cliff edge will be there whether you believe in it or not. The latter is the kind of thing Iâm talking about. They are our categories of convenience (or prejudice) that some insist must represent some hard-coded reality, and they are the things that end up breaking down on closer inspection.
1 Like
I kinda feel like youâre making both of my points for me. Reality-set boundaries is just a longish way of saying reality. Human-chosen boundaries seems to be an euphemism for religion/science/ideology. Largely based on expediency, not reality.
Mind you, Iâm an artist and a lover, and have been burned so many times by religion/science that I may be a tad cynical. 
Maybe for very good reasons! It isnât often around here that we hear from somebody who wants to throw out both science and religion.
As corrupted as any of those things can be and are, itâs still a pretty broad brush you paint with in presuming that the whole lot are all rotten to the core just because there are so many examples of evil. Is it all equally evil?
Of course, I concur. I do love my microwave, after all.
And, my God. I do love my God and His word!
I definitely believe in his unique interventions, having a good deal of evidence both personally and through secondary sources, so I can certainly see that as a both/and and not an either/or, not that we will ever be able to point to specifics any more than we can explain the âhowâ of his special providences.
I take the NT literally first whenever I can.
I do indeed. You?
Are we talking to ourselves here, Ralphie? 
frequently. no one will listen, anyway
As long as you donât get into any heated arguments I guessâŚ
1 Like
thatâs what i canât stand about him. always arguing with me. it wouldnât be so bad, but he is positive he knows more than i do. honestly? he often does
2 Likes
Would you mind rephrasing that? How can you be certain that communicating established historical fact was not the intent of the author? What is the probability that the authorâs goal was to express the simple thought and basic, obvious message the typical reader or person being read to, would assume? What if the intent was straight forward? âThe cat climbed up a tree and wouldnât come down.â
You canât. Just because someone makes an allusion doesnât mean you know anything about whether they think the person was historical or fictional or a mix. You can say that alluding to literature (historical or fictional) is not a typical discourse strategy for establishing the historicity of what you are talking about.
Itâs high. Speakers are cooperative. But the topic of conversation wasnât history, it was marriage. So the assumption would be that the basic obvious message Jesus was communicating was about marriage.
1 Like
I think it is presumptuous to assume we can discern an authorâs motives 2,000 years after he wrote. Not you, per se. I donât mean to single you out by any means.
A number of successful t.v. shows came out a while back after âprofilingâ captured our attention. The FBIâs behavioral analysis department achieved notoriety with their new methods of identifying serial killers, etc. and almost overnight it seemed as if everyone was profiling everyone. âOh, her kid sneezed twice in second grade and 3 times in fifth grade. We now know that repetitive sneezing is the subconscious mind alerting the child that his mother is going deaf. She couldnât have heard the defendant because the murder took place on January 12th, the same day her son sneezed 14 times in a row. She was deaf that day!â
CS Lewis said that critics who examined his writings for clues about his hidden motives, misinterpreted totally what his intentions and his psychological stresses were. And they were his contemporaries. The odds that we can tease out accurately the nuances of each NT authorâs subconscious motives are not good. âHistoricityâ is tossed around like we are all experts. âTruthâ is no longer truth. âEvidenceâ equals facts times my biased point of view divided by my limited understanding of the literary world of predominantly illiterate peasants living in a rural village 13 miles from a major cultural center.