How do YOU know that God chose to work thru that slower process?
The bible clearly indicates that He did not: Exodus 20:8-11 is definitely and expressly clear on that. EVERYTHING was created in 6 days. The context is clear about that too. The very same days that mankind was to do all his work is exactly the same days that God used to created everything. What is not clear about that? How do you twist these verses to conform to the premise of evolutionary self-growth?
Oh, please, Christy don’t be so obtuse.
Whoever HAS the Son of God has eternal life. How do you GET the Son of God?
Perhaps a better question to ask is this - how do we get to be debating about how God created via an evolutionary process taking billions of years when it clearly is not part of the bible itself?
In fact, the bible expressly negates ANY notion of evolution by stating unequivocally that God created everything in 6 days in Exodus 20:8-11. The 6 days in which mankind is to do all his work is exactly the same as the 6 days in which God created everything. The context is crystal clear.
The only reason that we are having this argument in the first place is that people have swallowed the lie of the atheist as truth and now have to manipulate and injure the meaning of the biblical text to justify their belief in the “scientific truth”. Clearly if you take that human “science” about our origins as the gospel “truth” and use it as your standard for judging all else including the bible, then the bible becomes just another mis-directed source of human information which you now have to fix to bring it in line with your perceived “truth”.
By grace through faith.
Says you. You know many of us reject this premise for reasons you could find all over the BioLogos website.
That’s not what is going on here.
It is true that people twist the scriptures to harm and attack people all the time. This is not my intention. Also, my question for Paul was genuine and not meant as an attack.
I do happen to believe that evolution is true, because 99 percent of scientists today support it as fact based on the evidence nature provides. I believe scientists have logical fact driven minds, and so are not about to start making up falsehoods in order to disprove the Bible, or for any reason.
That said, I do not believe that being a Christian who believes God created via evolutionary process disqualifies me from the redemptive blood of Christ. Christ did not say you will be saved by my blood, AND if your interpretations of scripture are correct.
2 Likes
My personal belief rejects eternal torment for the nonbeliever–IF by “nonbeliever” you mean someone who has NOT specifically accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Through the years I have become close friends with colleagues who are non-Christian and/or agnostic, and I have had no doubt that they are as beloved by God as any devout Christian I have known. I have previously posted the account of an incident where this Truth was demonstrated to three fellow scientists and myself. I called it ‘The Miracle of the Panel Truck’. If you cannot find it on this Forum, I can send it to you.
Furthermore, it is my (personal) belief that this concept of Jesus being the exclusive Way to heaven arose from one the most famous quotations from John’s gospel, 14:6; "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me. But this very well be a misquote of what Jesus actually said, as reported in the earlier passage, John 6:44; “No one comes to Me except the Father draws them.” The two quotations lead to quite different conclusions, wouldn’t you say?
I accept the fact that Scripture, albeit providing valuable guidance, is still a product of a number of Jesus’ disciples who gathered together many years after his death, to recall and recored some of his most pertinent sayings. Even with the best of intentions and inspiration, some errors were likely to be included. And I believe this is one that has caused a great deal of mischief.
Al Leo
In thinking thru the story, it seems it begins with a talking snake. hmm suspicious it is.
a talking snake fooled Eve who had until then only talked with Adam and God. And the downhill slide cursed humanity for all time? I think it is just a story. And with so many people on the earth, Adam could not have been the father to Chinese, Australian Aborigines, american indians.
Can evolution fit original sin? definitely. Take the 10 commandments, start at the end and work down. Most of what is evil could come from instincts developed for evolutionary survival. The evil is in all of us, it is inherited, even instinctual. Adultery, murder, theft, deception are thoughout the animal kingdom. Winning wars often depends upon theft, murder and deception. One could develop this more, Evolution is a mother to what is called original sin. Adam and Eve with 7 days of creation, is a story with moral points, and documents God’s interest in humanity, but a lot of the unimportant details e.g. was it an apple or a peach? are not important parts of the message.
I know this question is for Paul, but still I hope it’s ok for me to throw in my two cents here…
I believe that since Adam did sin, he indeed did have the disposition to sin. What other proof would we need? Keeping in mind humans also had the disposition not to fall into sin. It was a choice.
What is sin? Sometimes that word really bothers me, like a hang-up we all have. Sin = a selfish act without regard for others.
Did humans have the ability to be selfish and harm others intentionally? yes.
My thoughts are that the sin could only happen at the point and time when mankind became aware of the fact of his ability to choose, coupled with the knowledge that others would be hurt by his selfish action. For me, Adam and Eve are symbolic of the first human beings who became capable of understanding that a choice was available to them, but also with that there had developed a conscious, the understanding that one choice before them was selfish and harmful, (wrong) and the other loving and selfless, (right).
Really, who can have a conscience without understanding? All part of the gradual development of man.
Through their development and experience there was that “aha” moment, that was later passed down from generation to generation.
Who taught us about right and wrong? God.
When? When we were ready and able to learn it.
When I observe animals, I assume they are ruled by instinct, I see creatures who make selfish choices, but I cannot blame them because they have limited understanding. Like children.
Which brings me to the subject of souls. Only humans have human souls,
but I do not negate the possibility that animals may have souls as well.
Do children have souls? Yes, even though they lack understanding.
God revealed so much about Himself through His word in the Bible, however there is so much more to learn about what He has done, and is doing. There are countless things that we do not know about God, because everything about Him, all of His secrets are not contained in the Bible.
Do you really think there was a point in history where two human beings became aware of their “ability to choose”? This is such a gradual process, imposing the biblical story of Adam and Eve on it is a losing battle (in my opinion). If this moment does exist, was every human suddenly in need of a savior and deserving of damnation?
At some point … the pre-human hominids on the verge of achieving humanity … had to cross over the threshold of morality, right? Even if you don’t accept Evolution, you have to accept the logic of this position, yes?
I don’t think any human observer could offer rules for when each child achieves “Moral Agency” – so it is unlikely that someone in the hominid group ever suddenly becomes aware of what we call morality.
But God, the author of morality, obviously has his definition - - and it would be God who says: this is the line for that person… and he is the first person of all hominids to cross into Moral Agency.
This is a momentous event. And I can see the author of that story making a big deal of the first moral decision (which happened to be a bad one).
I’d like to hear you answer the second part: was every human suddenly in need of a savior and deserving of damnation? If you answer “yes,” I can see how it would be a “momentous event,” peculiar and twisted, but also momentous.
Anywhere you draw the line in hominid history is arbitrary. Sure, you can say that God decided at one exact point some hominid crossed some line, but this would be the most infinitesimal move forward conceivable (this “move forward” would really be more of a curse - to be all of a sudden a wretched sinner in the eyes of God).
At this elusive point in history are the hominid’s moral faculties fully intact? I mean, most humans didn’t figure out slavery was wrong until relatively recently. Again this is such a gradual process, both before and after the supposed “first sin,” that I find it very forced and hard to believe.
1 Like
I’m not the one drawing the line … God is! In the Adam and Eve story, does God ask Adam’s opinion as to whether Eve is a human? No. God is making the definitions. In the story, neither Adam or Eve have been taught about Good and Evil. So they are not the ones to ask.
God is the ultimate judge of morality, and when the first hominid qualified as a moral agent.
Are you following my point better now?
I get that part. God decides. So, once this infinitesimal moral advancement for some hominid takes place, was every human suddenly in need of a savior and deserving of damnation?
Ahhhhh… very good… your question shows that we are on the same page. I was loath to discuss it as long as you felt it was something Humans had to judge and decide!
- The “Moment of Morality Onset” (a term I am coining for the purposes of this discussion!) is not only something applicable to the first hominid with moral agency … it is also a template for every infant who grows somewhere in the neighborhood of maturity !!! Again, it is impossible for humans or human society to define. But at some point, every infant … every toddler, every child - - achieves the moment of moral agency.
We don’t hold toddler’s responsible if they shoot a brother accidentally with a loaded weapon. And Baptists don’t have their toddlers baptized. Because they have not achieve moral maturity, right?
So, it is easy to see that everyone has his or her “Adam moment” … when suddenly the child first encounters a decision involving moral agency - - and he or she must act.
But let’s return to the specific question you asked: in a hominid group of 500 individuals… the first hominid encounters his moment of moral agency!!!
It would be my opinion that only those who encounter their own “Moment of Morality Onset” would be in need of salvation … and only when they fail that moment! But failing in moral agency is inevitable for any animal creature alive.
As this early hominid society comes to recognize the special nature of this moral hominid … or at the very least, the special nature of his or her grandchildren … eventually the hominid troop will be 100% composed of individuals who either will have their “Moment of Morality Onset” … or already have.
Why is moral failure inevitable for everyone? Because this is how God made us? Because he used evolution? It seems a little ridiculous for God to ■■■■ all these hominids to hell for being how they inevitably are. I apologize for being blunt, but the whole EC endeavor strikes me as painfully contrived.
I agree with Freddy on this point, and I also think it is a waste of time to try to turn the Adam and Eve narrative into a description of an actual historical moment in human evolution. It seems much better to me theologically to look at it as a moment in the history of God’s covenanting with humanity. Whether there actually was a historical couple or if the story represents a fictional archetype is beside the point. Trying to tie Adam and Eve to some sort of speculative dawn of humanity leads to wild conjecturing and a load of theological problems. We have enough theological problems with this whole original sin deal.
1 Like
If you have a problem with the YEC-bias, great to have you on board.
But if you have a problem with the Christian bias in general… the BioLogos forum is not really the place for it.
For most of us here, the imperfection of anything other than God is a normal assumption.
Although I would add that non-Christians are also welcome here.
2 Likes
My description of Adam as an exemplar of achieving Moral Agency is hardly historical. It is a “model”. Eve isn’t essential to this example, other than it makes sense to have a woman experiencing the same thing - - since the audience for this story is not just male.
I am compelled by the logic of the Adam and Eve story:
Be it via Evolution, or by God’s creation, Adam and Eve know nothing of morality.
Then they arrive at a point where they make a bad decision, and the moral gulf they crossed is suddenly apparent to them.
Every teenager has this moment.
And theoretically speaking, we know, in God’s eyes, sommmmmmmmmmme hominid, sommmmmmmmmmme whereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee had to go through this experience.
And that’s the extent of the comparison and analogy.
You and @freddymagnanimo can reach a different conclusion if you like - - but can you dispose of the idea that there is a First Time for every human?!
And can you dispose of the idea that there had to be a first hominid who discovered his capacity for moral (and immoral) agency ?!