Yes that is the question that interests me also – to move on from the question of whether evolution is true to what does it mean for theology?
I believe it is because free will is the very essence of life itself, learning as it grows from the very small by constantly becoming more than it was in a self-organizing self-creative process. God’s role is thus that of shepherd and parent rather than designer, for even though living things create themselves they do not do so in a vacuum.
I like to contrast this with the angels who are made as they are and can never be other than what they were made to be. I think they are described as servants in comparison though the a more accurate word might be tools (as much as an intelligent spirit can be a tool anyway) – spirits made for a function rather than as an end in itself as any child must be.
The point is that free will is not some magical add-on but the very essence of our existence as living organisms. This is why we are created through evolution – because that is the only way that living beings with free will can exist without losing a large portion of their self-determination.
Evolution theory is a solid one, but its extension to creation is not. The creation of life is a different process then the evolution of life. God created life and evolution is an integral part of the restoration process. The early Christian theory of the Restoration of All Things (Apocatastasis) describes an imperceivably slow process, just like evolution. So, for me, God created primitive life and allowed that life to evolve slowly into conscious life, moving from basic instinct to a loving and caring society over billions of years.
You love the linguistic aspects and wordplay? Then let me recommend Robert Alter’s recently completed translation of the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament). This has been a decades-long endeavour (I first encountered his work the mid-1980s), and is highly respected by biblical scholars and theologians. It has very detailed footnotes which go into the linguistic details and Hebrew wordplay.
It’s a fairly big outlay in cost! So if you’re not sure, various individual books have been separately available over the years as he has done the work.
In my experience, most Christians believe in Dualism (i.e. mind and brain are separate). On top of that, I doubt many Christians believe that God is an ape, or has a physical human form. So why the hangup on the physical nature of being human if Christianity argues so strongly for the importance of the non-physical? While Christians seem to be arguing against scientism and materialism, OEC and YEC seem to be supporting those philosophies.
That’s a good point. I do believe the image of God is more than physical, but details are a mystery. One of my problems with YEC outlooks is that many of the more stringent ones basically make the gospel of Jesus dependent on how old the earth is, and other things of that nature, which I think gives those details far too much importance to Christian thought. But perhaps this is similar – Christians might say the spiritual is more important, but that’s pretty much negated if we make the spiritual dependent on the biological.
That’s a good question (or observation). Which I think your next observation may begin to uncover.
Indeed. I think part of the inclination (of all of us perhaps - not just OEC or YEC) toward these emphases on the physical is that we don’t want to fall into such stark dualism of pitting spirit against material. For Christians the whole message is about God investing so much into
this material creation, culminating even in the incarnation itself. So there is an unwillingness to participate in a perceived “divorce” that would have us trying to believe in two separate realms. Speaking for myself, anyway, I tend to insist on the physical as being an expression of (and subset of) the larger spiritual realm rather than separated from it. I know there are scripture passages (like John 12:31) that speak as if there are two separate realms, and indeed if taken as an isolated proof text would see this world as Satan’s dominion. But on balance with (I think) a greater weight of scriptural teaching, this should still be seen as being within God’s ultimate dominion as it is impossible to escape that penultimate reign even if rebellious pockets are found in our hearts, communities, and even entire civilizations or worlds.
This has been my point for some time, yet I find great resistance in Christianity to discuss God’s spiritual world and its vast population. If this is the world all Christians strive to inherit, why is clouded in such “mystery”? The words spirit occurs 287 times in the NT, but rarely in Christian discussions.
Because it is intangible. We are uncomfortable in discussing the intangible. We like to be able to explain and defend our thoughts and opinions, and the tangible is available and present. This may be why God chose to send his son the way that he did.
But isn’t it time to start using the lessons learned in quantum mechanics, physics and medicine to remove the mystery? The ancient Greeks taught that only from a strong basis of logic and reason should one start to investigate the spiritual laws governing our natural laws. In other words, no mystery or speculation, but only logic and reason. I suggest starting with the first law of thermodynamic.
Sure. I’m in no way anti-spirit or anti-spiritual… I was just answering your question. I’m not positive that the solution is where or how you seek it, but you may be correct with that approach.
IMO if one is serious about the scriptures he should learn to read the OT in Hebrew. It’s not a difficult language, as such things go. I am surprised how few Christians make that effort.
Learning Hebrew to read may not be too hard, but understanding and being competent in it is a lifetime journey. Even then, one would be left with the uncertainty of what some words meant in the context and culture that they were used.
I did mean read with comprehension, not just reading to enunciate. It’s a slog like any language but some 3-5 yrs of steady practice will develop enough competence to read the Hebrew scriptures. Much the same as taking up an instrument. Doable but requires commitment. I was once a Hebrew teacher.
But my comment was tangential to your main point and I took advantage to put in a plug for learning the language and going to the source.
And I do agree it’s difficult to know the fine points of how the language was understood in the world of the Late Bronze Age which was profoundly different. One might well wonder if the authors of the US Constitution would recognize their work if they saw the US today.
In thinking “what it means to be human” from my pov, gods have no bearing.
Rather, i see us as we so manifestly are, animals, and clearly
close kin to other primates.
AND, I see that in being human, we can properly feel great pride in how we’ve collectively pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps and become
what we are.
Im not about to give credit or agency to any help from a creator who did more than set off the BB.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
37
How long are their salaries going to be linked to OEC + A&E? Forever seems reasonable. That’s the tail that wags the piper. All American politicians are believers as far as I’m aware. The vast majority Christian. A large minority at least are lying.
From my POV, the term “God/gods” is too ill defined to warrant weighing in on one way or the other. While I agree with you that we are obviously animals -and few here would disagree- you haven’t yet accounted for what makes us so different. Bootstrap pulling strength? I don’t think so.
I think to really engage about humanity and roles of science and religion, you’d have to account for what it is which has made God belief so compelling for so long and almost every where. Whether or not God belief continues is a separate question from what role it could have played in our having become as we are. I think it was essential, and I’m not a Christian.
You make that sound like something we should find prominently displayed at the Smithsonian and written up in all the best scientific journals. I wonder why it isn’t? Conspiracy, or perhaps there isn’t as much straight forward empirical evidence as you believe?
To avoid a torrent of one liners this will be my last reply to you in this thread. Suffice to say I do agree that the weight of empirical evidence which backs you up is anywhere near as great as you think it is. Agree to disagree? (Either way, I do.)