Angels and Theistic Evolution

[ReverendDG]

Have we sufficiently answered the OP's query?

Angels are not physical beings, thus they do not evolve.

i'd say we have, for better or worse.. who knows why AV really asks such questions. i find it the most exasperating way of "debating" ever.
i find trying to get AV to debate in honesty without the rhetoric (ironic that he seems to like to whine about others using it,) like trying to get blood from a turnip

 

[corvus_corax]

i find trying to get AV to debate in honesty without the rhetoric (ironic that he seems to like to whine about others using it,) like trying to get blood from a turnip

Then why do you even bother with AV?
Please dont pull out the old "Its for the lurkers" card
AV has been done to death
(NB this question is not just directed towards you, but to others who share your POV regarding AV)

 

[Danyc]

Then why do you even bother with AV?
Please dont pull out the old "Its for the lurkers" card
AV has been done to death
(NB this question is not just directed towards you, but to others who share your POV regarding AV)

You can't argue that it is effective. AV's posts were one of my main influences in bringing me to the side of reason.

 

[corvus_corax]

You can't argue that it is effective. AV's posts were one of my main influences in bringing me to the side of reason.

So you were 'unreasonable' until you saw the obvious end point (eg- dad, av, etc) of such lack of reason?
Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

 

[Danyc]

So you were 'unreasonable' until you saw the obvious end point (eg- dad, av, etc) of such lack of reason?
Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

It wasn't the only motivation. The extreme abundance of evidence for evolution and against the likelihood of the Flood ever happening was a part of it as well, but AV's and Dads posts really gave me bad impressions about the position I was holding at the time.

So yeah, you could say that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Angels are not physical beings, thus they do not evolve.

What does not being physical have to do with it? If God says "evolve", they'll evolve.

Truth of the matter is though, God is not a respecter* of persons,** and He would not have one group come into existence by a series of genetic mistakes and not the other.

* Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

** Angels are considered persons.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

What does not being physical have to do with it? If God says "evolve", they'll evolve.

Truth of the matter is though, God is not a respecter* of persons,** and He would not have one group come into existence by a series of genetic mistakes and not the other.

* Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

** Angels are considered persons.

First of all, mutations aren't mistakes per se - they can be beneficial or not. Second, why wouldn't God do that? Aren't His plans beyond our ability to understand?

 

[edrogati]

What does not being physical have to do with it? If God says "evolve", they'll evolve.

Truth of the matter is though, God is not a respecter* of persons,** and He would not have one group come into existence by a series of genetic mistakes and not the other.

* Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

** Angels are considered persons.

Um, HUH?! This is not Christian theology by any means. Angels were created before the universe if I understand my Bible at all. Their nature is drastically different from humanity at pretty much every level.

As for the "genetic mistake" canard, I believe that God had everything to do with creating human beings and anything that led up to us was by no means a mistake. Just because you don't understand why God might do it that way, it's a mistake? No thanks.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Um, HUH?! This is not Christian theology by any means. Angels were created before the universe if I understand my Bible at all. Their nature is drastically different from humanity at pretty much every level.

As for the "genetic mistake" canard, I believe that God had everything to do with creating human beings and anything that led up to us was by no means a mistake. Just because you don't understand why God might do it that way, it's a mistake? No thanks.

You will find that AV1611VET holds quite unique notions about what constitutes mainstream Christian theology, or even Christian theology at all - then again, he holds quite unique notions about everything else too.

Hello and welcome to the forums, by the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, mutations aren't mistakes per se...

From ---

Over the eons, advantageous mutations, examples of which we look at later, have allowed life to develop and diversify from primitive cells into the multitude of species—including Homo sapiens—that exist on Earth today. If DNA replicated perfectly every time, without errors, the only life-forms existing now would be those that existed about three billion years ago: single-cell organisms. Mutations, therefore, are critical to the development of diverse life-forms, a phenomenon known as speciation (see Speciation).

 

[edrogati]

Let's say for the sake of argument that God, being Creator of the universe, set things up so that mutations were a mechanism for desired change, not an "error". Answers.com has no theological viewpoint, as far as I know, so a mutation would apparently be an error in cell duplication, not something that was purposefully done.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

From ---

What I meant was that mutations aren't always harmful to an organism. Of course they are, by definition, mistakes that happen during DNA replication.

 

[Danyc]

What does not being physical have to do with it? If God says "evolve", they'll evolve.

Truth of the matter is though, God is not a respecter* of persons,** and He would not have one group come into existence by a series of genetic mistakes and not the other.

* Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

** Angels are considered persons.

God is unable to cause biological evolution in a being that is not biological. Sure, God could say "evolve", and they would change, but if they don't mate and reproduce and have gene mutations, evolution won't occur.

Then again, God could always make them mortal for a short period of time. I mean, He can do anything he wants to.

But I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I meant was that mutations aren't always harmful to an organism. Of course they are, by definition, mistakes that happen during DNA replication.

Thanks for the clarification --- after I posted from Answers.com ---

 

[AV1611VET]

But I really don't see where you're going with this.

God didn't make the angels via evolution, and He didn't make us via evolution.

 

[Danyc]

God didn't make the angels via evolution, and He didn't make us via evolution.

Is this really your argument?

Angels are holy spirits, that dwell with God. They are extremely far from humans, both in structure and in purpose.

Why on earth is it imperative that they both have evolved?

The answer is simple: God created them spiritual beings, thus he created them to not undergo evolution. God created creatures a biological being, thus he created them to undergo evolution.

I don't see the problem here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

God didn't make the angels via evolution, and He didn't make us via evolution.

The veritable exemplar of non sequitur.

 

[consol]

God didn't make the angels via evolution, and He didn't make us via evolution.

More like the ramblings of a very disturbed and damaged man.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see the problem here.

The question in my OP is: "Where did the angels come from?" Do you have an answer?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The question in my OP is: "Where did the angels come from?" Do you have an answer?

Somebody quote me; AV has me on ignore.

Angels come from mythology. Is that so difficult to understand?