You made some good points which I never considered before, especially John 14:6 that it doesn’t necessary mean that salvation is only possible by knowing about Christ. However what exactly is required for Salvation then? How could an Aztec worshipping pagan gods achieve it?
If it was true that non-Christians have the same opportunity for salvation than Christians, then doesn’t it undermine the need for missionary work? In fact if a non-believer rejected Christianity after being told about it for the first time, his salvation might be actually jeopardized? It may be better to be ignorant than to hear the truth and reject it?
I have thought about dying infants before, but the scriptures aren’t clear that they will automatically go to heaven. Also if this were really true, then the opposition to abortion doesn’t make sense because you will be removing the baby’s guaranteed ticket to salvation. Some might say they are trying to prevent mothers from committing murder, but often their focus is more on the unborn losing its life (this shouldn’t bother Christians who believe these babies go straight to heaven, but it does?).
Theistic evolution is then same exact evolution as what atheists, Buddhists, muslims and ect… believes. The term theistic is not designating a special version or subcategory of evolution but it’s highlighting the false contention created by literalist fundamentalist and atheists who believes science and faith are at ends with one another.
So why the need for the word ‘theistic’ in front evolution? The type of evolution you believe is true is no different from that taught in biology classes? Not so?
I have already answered it a few times pretty clearly. I’m not sure how you got misinformed understandings so engrained. Maybe you need to look into deconstructing your young earth creationism/ intelligent design and understand how ambiguous the term theistic evolution / evolutionary creationism is.
Many of the people in here don’t even believe in Adam and Eve as anything more than literary devices for humankind and the only truth you can get out of it is highly symbolic and metaphorical. Some believe other things.
This is a quote from Wikipedia: Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God and characterizes it as accepting “that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God”. It is this last part which distinguishes it from evolution taught in science classes which has nothing guiding it. Is this not what you mean in which case we actually both agree?
I’m very well aware that many Christians take a non-literal view of Genesis, and that many accept evolution while rejecting the anti-science views of creationists. What confuses me is when these Christians (who say they accept evolution) also make claims that to me at least seem inconsistent with science. An example is the Doctrine of Original Sin (which I realize you reject). I think I should actually create a new post with the title “Are the doctrines of Original Sin / The Fall consistent with Evolution?” which is really what I wanted to debate
But even the views of Christians such as yourself who reject any literal interpretation of Genesis confuse me, because it implies that god through evolution, set us up to fail and then he judges us deserving of punishment when we do (see Was there death before the Fall? - #57 by Anthony)
Thanks for pointing that out. I meant some Christians who say they accept evolution still make claims that are inconsistent with evolution e.g. the doctrines of Original Sin and The Fall
So you’re saying that there was an alteration of the relationship between god and humans and that this is the reason why there is so much suffering and evil in this world? Can you expand on this? In particular:
How are humans different before and after this change?
What caused this alteration in the relationship?
What about humans who had no interaction with Adam & Eve or their descendants until modern times? For example, the Sentinelese are an tribe who have been living on one of the Andaman Islands for at least the last 55000 years and have virtually no contact with the rest of the world. How were they affected by this change in relationship you speak of? Or was this relationship always broken?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
71
Evolutionary creationists believe that God is guiding evolution in the same way that God is guiding gravity or meteorology or energy conservation laws. That is … we don’t take issue with those explanations of things or insist that magnetism, for example, is Godless because no theories of it refer to God’s involvement.
So the moniker “Theistic…” is really just a reactionary corrective to the insistence of some evolutionary scientists that evolution (seemingly alone among all the sciences I guess) must preclude any existence of intention or purpose by any supervising Deity. No science or math or logic is (or can be) offered up as to why this must be so - it’s just the bare and unsupported religious assertion that God and evolution cannot both be real. Because of that unfortunate history, many Christian thinkers and scientists have noted that science shows nothing of the sort. The reality of God is quite established (or not!) on entirely other grounds. Evolutionary science has no more to say about that than magnetism or gravity or relativity does. You can bet that if a historical movement had arisen insisting that magnetism is and must be atheistic, then today there would probably be a movement labeled “theistic magnetists” who insist that one can fully accept theories of magnetism and still believe that God oversees it all.
So your quest to find how “theistic evolution” is different than so-called “unguided” (which is code-lingo by some for godless) evolution can never bear any better fruit than a quest to find out how Christian meteorology differs from ordinary meteorology. The descriptor “theistic” is simply an acknowledgment that, contrary to the materialist assumption, Christians can engage with the fully robust scientific findings just as well as anybody else - and they can do so completely within robustly biblical Christianity.
I can honestly say I am not sure. I could offer some guesses (somehow you connect with a piece of God and end up with a charitable heart, selflessness, a loving faith and other fruits of the spirit) but in the end salvation is God’s business. I don’t think all other faiths are wrong in the sense that you can’t come to God in them or even find many divine truths buried in another system of names and beliefs. I think God is real and belief in the Transcendent is natural. God is bigger than the boxes we put him in. One thing the Gospel of Thomas got right: Jesus said: “Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there.”
In Christianity, we believe we received direct revelation and God incarnated himself. This doesn’t mean to me that other people in different cultures and contexts can’t find God in different places. But I don’t think the mutually exclusive truth claims of all religions are true. The law of non-contradiction holds. But finding God and glimpsing the divine where you can is more important than correct doctrine. But if you can do both…
I don’t think everyone who has ever merely heard the name Jesus is now without excuse and automatically damned if they didn’t turn into a modern, conservative Protestant. I have quite a few friends who believe this. Very nice people but I still consider them “thumpers.” I don’t believe people who have heard of Jesus are necessarily rejecting the real transforming and risen Jesus but a caricature of it. They are rejecting a story about Jesus with a lot of problematic baggage, some of which stems from His followers failing to be a good witness, morally and intellectually. The real Jesus they haven’t met yet. I could never see the majority of the world rejecting Him.
Suggesting there is no need to evangelize if anyone can go to heaven is like saying there is no reason to offer food or help to a poor person that is going to heaven. Even if temporary, that pain is still very much real. That type of attitude does not follow the teachings of Jesus or Christian ideas. As Christians we are supposed to be filled with the Spirit and imitating Christ. I belief James tells us plainly if we don’t help people in need and show compassion we aren’t saved. To whom much is given, much is expected. The point of life isn’t just to get to heaven. We are supposed to love, grow and learn. Our focus needs to be on the here and now.
I could also ask the same type of question to you as an atheist. If any suffering is really only for a blink of an eye on cosmic scales (80 years is close to nothing) and non-existence continues for eternity, then what does it really matter if we care about or help our fellow humans? In a million or billion years when all humanity is probably gone and there is zero trace we ever existed, what did anything ultimately matter? Follow morality and reciprocal altruism as dictated by “blind” evolution which claims some mere collections of atoms and molecules have intrinsic value and inalienable rights? Do you find these sort of caricaturing questions to actually present any challenge to your sense of morality and purpose?
The life and teachings of Jesus have immense value on their own. For most of us God is love and we see the absolute best demonstration of that love in the person of Jesus. God lowers himself, experiences what we experience and humbly allows Jesus to be victimized and suffer a torturous death on the Cross. Jesus is about bridging an infinite ontological gap. Giving us a proper image of God and creating solidarity. A Roman cross seems like the absolute last place in the universe we would expect to find God. A porn studio would seem more likely on a prima facie level but that is part of the beauty of the Cross.
A book written by a former fundamentalist who struggled through the maze that I recently read said, “Jesus came to offer more than just salvation from hell.” And “Just because I think God will be merciful when he judges doesn’t mean I think the Gospel is pointless. I believe the Gospel of the most important thing in the world! It should be shared no matter what.” Rachel Evans, Evolving in Monkey Town
Not only that but the majority of Christians feel that God commissioned us to spread the good News about Jesus. Jesus is so much more than “a get out of jail free card.” The Gospel means good news. God loves us. He wants to saves us from ourselves.
You like the tough questions. Sure, if aborted babies axiomatically to heaven then maybe it’s not so bad. But should we just abort them all and end the human race?
But since I don’t think damnation is axiomatic for “non Christians” I also don’t think salvation is axiomatic for anyone, including babies. I think there is probably more at some point before heaven or hell. A Catholic purgatory type place. I also think “salvation” itself is a process. We could have just been born in heaven. But instead we have earth. God wants people alive, to reproduce, to make free choices and to establish a genuine relationship with him. Terminating a baby’s life is contrary to God’s will. By this logic, whether a baby or even a small child, we could reasonably kill our children and send them to heaven. I can assure you that murdering your baby or child is not a good thing. The
It’s about the sanctity of life. All life, not just babies. I see far too many Christians who think being “pro-life” only extends to babies and abortion. To be pro-life is to care about unborn babies but also abused children, mistreated spouses, the poor, the destitute, the marginalized, drug addict, prisoners and even the rich person feeling empty inside. For a Christian to be “pro-life” is supposed to mean so much more since we believe all people bare the imago Dei.
There are pagans who call them selfies theists and use the term theistic evolution.
This will be the last time and if you don’t get it you don’t get it.
Theistic evolution is used by many people. Many people use the term and it has nothing to do with god guided. Inise the term theistic evolution. I don’t think God guided anything with evolution and that humans are here purely by chance.
So you can read a few lines in and see that this term is used by many in the same way as myself. N
Aaahhh okay…I see your point. My previous comments weren’t quite right, but I don’t think yours were either. If a theory makes a positive claim about a natural process being directed (as with theistic evolution) or not directed towards a specific goal (as with atheistic evolution), then it must provide evidence thereof. Neither position has been validated by science.
The scientific theory of evolution however makes no claims about it being directed towards any goal. This of course doesn’t mean it isn’t. Maybe in future such evidence will be forthcoming and the theory might need to be revised.
So there are really 3 positions: theistic evolution, atheistic evolution and the Theory of Evolution.
Please see my comment to Mervin who had a similar objection
You’re one of the “evolutionary creationists" referred to in the article. So you’re in the 3rd category I listed i.e. you just believe in the Theory of Evolution and reject the other two positions? For what its worth, I also reject atheistic evolution because there is no evidence that evolution is goal-less (although I suspect it is).
The theist part can mean multiple things. The evolution part can mean multiple things.
You find people who use the term “theistic evolution” to refer to a sort of subcategory of intelligent design where God interferes with nature and guides comets that hit earth and whatever else they decide and you have people using the term “theistic evolution” to refer to a coined word to make to statements I believe in a higher power and I believe in evolution and within this group you’ll find Jews, Muslims and Christians and within the christians you’ll find people using the term being used by people who don’t believe that God
Has guided anything about the process of evolution.
Now you can go into the streets and ask tons of people if they believe in god and you’ll routinely hear people say , “ no I don’t believe in God I believe in evolution”’or “ no I believe in science”’where evolution is preloaded with the concept of atheism and evolution. When you bring up the subject with a wide range and probably the majority of American Christians and you state and talk a few minutes about why you believe in theistic evolution they say ,” oh so you don’t really believe in God or believe in the Bible and ect…”
To say you believe in evolution to a large section of people in the world is synonymous with atheism. That’s why you don’t see atheists saying I believe in atheistic evolution because evolution is already commonly held to promote atheism. So when I say I believe in or I am a “ evolutionary creationist, evolutionary creationism, theistic evolutionists, theistic evolution, ) it means one thing. I am a theist and I believe in evolution. No matter what you say it’s problematic because there is no clear cut terminology snd even if you say “ I am a Christian who believes in evolution” you still have atheists and Christians thinking it means either it’s pseudoscience or that you’re denying God or that you think the Bible is useless and ect…. If I was the only person within this community or the planet that was using the terms that way I would change it. But I’m not.
I also think evolution is goal less because it has no direction. It’s not a being or a worldview. It’s the byproduct of chance. It’s by chance a series of tetrapods ended up lizards, snakes and primates .
Sure you can talk about various mutations being activated. The science is not 100% clear on all of it. But what the science is clear about is that a tetrapod from millions of years ago did not say hey I want my descendants to be mostly hairless bipedal chimps and there was no fish that said hey you know I need to start manipulating my genes to produce mutations that allow me to walk. As a proponent of free will I also don’t believe God caused some squirrel looking human ancestor to take a mate and travel from the coasts to higher ground to avoid being killed by tidal waves potentially caused by asteroids and then made sure each of their offspring and their offsprings offspring had at least one kid that survived to ensure we evolved down the road.
I just don’t believe evolution means there is no God or that Jesus is fake.
