Angels and Theistic Evolution

[Tinker Grey]

I said if Theistic Evolution was correct --- ergo, evolution.

Thanks for the clutter, though.

1) Evolution does not occur without reproduction.
2) Jesus said they do not reproduce.
3) Ergo (which means therefore), no evolution of angels.
4) Ergo, if they exist, God would have created them as is -- even if Theistic evolution is correct.

That is, biological beings evolve. We don't know what spiritual beings do. TE makes no suppositions about angels.

Thank you for cluttering rational discussion, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

1) Evolution does not occur without reproduction.
2) Jesus said they do not reproduce.
3) Ergo (which means therefore), no evolution of angels.
4) Ergo, if they exist, God would have created them as is -- even if Theistic evolution is correct.

Thank you for cluttering rational discussion, though.

QV Post 20 --- I'm already ahead of you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you were ahead of me, you would have gotten it right the first time I posted.

 

[gaara4158]

--disregard--

 

[gaara4158]

That's five new posts.

My mistake, now you can't trust anything I say.

I take it then, that you agree with my point? That God created the angels ex nihilo, but we got here via a series of genetic mistakes?

Assuming God and Angels do indeed exist, yes. Problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

My mistake. Now you can't trust anything I say.

LOL --- I have my list of who I think are the best non-theistic answerers around here. Just fyi:

• Wiccan Child --- by far
• MrGoodbytes
• You
• Thaumaturgy --- when he's not ranting
• FrumiousBandersnatch --- (has his days though)
• a few others I can't think of

 

[gaara4158]

LOL --- I have my list of who I think are the best non-theistic answerers around here. Just fyi:

• Wiccan Child --- by far
• MrGoodbytes
• You
• Thaumaturgy --- when he's not ranting
• FrumiousBandersnatch --- (has his days though)
• a few others I can't think of

I'm flattered, if you're not being sarastic.

In any case, I see you've again ignored the substantial part of my post and gone of on a tangent based on the joke. Care to address it?

 

[dlamberth]

Thanks for stopping by to clutter this thread up by bragging that you don't know.

What do you expect when you clutter this thread with non-reality scenarios.


.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

LOL --- I have my list of who I think are the best non-theistic answerers around here. Just fyi:

• Wiccan Child --- by far
• MrGoodbytes
• You
• Thaumaturgy --- when he's not ranting
• FrumiousBandersnatch --- (has his days though)
• a few others I can't think of

Aw, you...

 

[Danyc]

Just repeating.

Angels are not physical beings. They are spiritual, as Grey has stated.

Thus, I suspect that they came from God, if they came from anywhere.

If you are asking if they evolved into what they are-- no, they did not.

Angels do not reproduce, meaning they have never evolved.

 

[Cabal]

TE has no problem saying that God created angels, because the Bible doesn't say they were created in six days and then God leaves abundant evidence scattered round suggesting they evolved over 3 million years, qv mankind.

Now, if we discovered a bunch of angel skeletons and a bunch of fundies were asking us to teach the angelic controversy, we'd be giving them just as much of a hard time.

Come on, AV, you can do much better than this.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

That Theistic Evolutionists give credit to the angels for being created*, but always refer to mankind as "having evolved".

* At least I have to assume they do --- they're smart enough not to answer me.

AV, do you really think we'll let you get away with these blatant false assertions? Post #5:

Angels are not physical beings. They are spiritual, as Grey has stated.

Thus, I suspect that came from God, if they came from anywhere.

If you are asking if they evolved into what they are-- no, they did not.

(Tinker Grey and MrGB also answered in the role of TEs, even though they're not.) And before you accuse me of not answering: I agree with Danyc (et al.): assuming God and angels exist, then angels are spiritual beings, not physical; therefore both angels and humans were created by God, humans via evolution, angels via some other mechanism (which could quite easily be ex nihilo creation). And?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

If Theistic Evolution is correct, where did the angels come from?

Angels are the entities who are privileged to serve His Noodliness and his favored guests at the Table of Eternal Pasta -- His Noodliness of course being the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Angels are just people who achieved their rank through the method described in the sacred texts: being skillied in gently massaging his Noodliness' meatballs. The highest ranking angel is Gabriel for his technique is legendary. He gently caresses our Pastafarian Lord's meatballs and even lovingly takes them into his mouth before slathering them with his special sauce.

Now you know.

 

[dlamberth]

Thanks for stopping by to clutter this thread up by bragging that you don't know.

And you know? Just like you know the name of God? Ya...right!

.

 

[Belk]

Thanks for stopping by to clutter this thread up by bragging that you don't know.

Hey, anytime. Thanks for the uncivil and derogatory response.

 

[Danyc]

Angels are the entities who are privileged to serve His Noodliness and his favored guests at the Table of Eternal Pasta -- His Noodliness of course being the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Angels are just people who achieved their rank through the method described in the sacred texts: being skillied in gently massaging his Noodliness' meatballs. The highest ranking angel is Gabriel for his technique is legendary. He gently caresses our Pastafarian Lord's meatballs and even lovingly takes them into his mouth before slathering them with his special sauce.

Now you know.

Simply amazing

 

[ReverendDG]

If Theistic Evolution is correct, where did the angels come from?

i hate to be a me too post, but i'd think god could create them by poofing, angels don't reproduce do they?

i'm not sure why you ask this really. TE's believe in god , they just look at the natural world and see the evidence that life shows evolution.
angels are spirits, they aren't alive in the earthly sense

 

[AV1611VET]

angels don't reproduce do they?

Yes --- QV Genesis 6.

i'm not sure why you ask this really.

It's just refreshing to get an evolutionist to admit:

1. That God indeed created life (or anything) ex nihilo.
2. Not all life evolved.

TE's believe in god ,

Yes --- they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

they just look at the natural world and see the evidence that life shows evolution.

No comment.

angels are spirits, they aren't alive in the earthly sense

Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons".

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Yes --- QV Genesis 6.

Funny, my KJV doesn't include the word "angel" anywhere in Gen 6.

(Yes, I know how you're interpreting this passage, but I'd like you to at least admit that it's an interpretation -- one that TEs (or anyone for that matter) are not obliged to share.)

Yes --- they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

To quibble: not necessarily. TE, not CE...

Angels are quite alive

Which is why RevDG qualified this statement ("in the earthly sense").

and technically are considered "persons".

Citation/justification?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny, my KJV doesn't include the word "angel" anywhere in Gen 6.

Neither does mine, but then, It doesn't have to.

(Yes, I know how you're interpreting this passage, but I'd like you to at least admit that it's an interpretation -- one that TEs (or anyone for that matter) are not obliged to share.)

Yes --- it's an interpretation that TEs (or anyone for that matter) are not obliged to share; but I was asked, and I answered.

To quibble: not necessarily. TE, not CE...

Good point.

Which is why RevDG qualified this statement ("in the earthly sense").

Whatever.

Citation/justification?

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Also --- keep in mind that angels have freewill, will be judged (by us), and possess a personality.