Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

So you do know how mankind came into existence? Let me guess, it evolved? Alright then, how did it evolve to be in God’s image?

So this question here is like asking, how did people evolve to make up a football team. Me appointing people to fill roles of a team, isn't about evolution. It's not about anatomy either. Puppies play in the puppy bowl each year on their own football teams.

It's just not about biology or material origins. It's more about being chosen for a purpose.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, I have a question for you. Since you agree that a person is not a scientific concept, why are you trying to explain how humans came to be with science?

Because the original thread question is "can you be a Christian and believe in evolution". And the answer is, yes. The Bible is talking about filling roles and appointing people. It's about making a team. Not making in the sense of biological origins.

And with that, the Bible is compatible with evolution. Because the Bible isn't talking about material origins.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, you are referring to the word "make" in Genesis 1:26. (link this time is to strongs). That's fine, but when you make a recipe you are still creating or producing something - a set of instructions - that did not exist before. You can make a cupcake recipe and keep it in your head, and then it's just an immaterial concept. Or you can write it down on paper, and then it becomes an immaterial concept on a material piece of paper. You give it to someone else, and they can make a very material cupcake. Does dna and cell come to mind? God produces a set of instructions, writes it down as dna, gives dna to a cell, cell makes a human following God's instructions. Of course Moses didn't know any of that, but we do. And God did too when He said "let Us make a man in our image".

Now how about the word "created" in Genesis 1:27? - Shape/fashion/something new/miracle.

So according to Strong's, God said "let Us produce a man in our image" and "God miracled a man". See?

That's not a football team. That's a pick-up game. If you want to make a team, you take a bunch of people and you train them. You teach them how to work together, and you give them certain roles. And yes, you did just make something new that did not exist before. You took a bunch of individuals, you assigned them each a job, and you made them into a unit that works together. And you made them into a football team, not a basketball team and not a team of speed sewing seamstresses. Just like God made us in God's image for a specific purpose.

Did I say that Bible is a science textbook? LOL. Of course the word make is not necessarily biological. But people are biological, are we not? Also, I have a question for you. Since you agree that a person is not a scientific concept, why are you trying to explain how humans came to be with science?

Look, I wanted to show you something and leave you to think about it. I show a thing to 2 people independently of each other and ask them to draw what they see.

Person 1 draws this:
View attachment 344994

Person 2 draws this:
View attachment 344995

Did they draw the same thing?

Right, you are referring to the word "make" in Genesis 1:26. (link this time is to strongs). That's fine, but when you make a recipe you are still creating or producing something - a set of instructions - that did not exist before. You can make a cupcake recipe and keep it in your head, and then it's just an immaterial concept. Or you can write it down on paper, and then it becomes an immaterial concept on a material piece of paper. You give it to someone else, and they can make a very material cupcake. Does dna and cell come to mind? God produces a set of instructions, writes it down as dna, gives dna to a cell, cell makes a human following God's instructions. Of course Moses didn't know any of that, but we do. And God did too when He said "let Us make a man in our image".

Now how about the word "created" in Genesis 1:27? - Shape/fashion/something new/miracle.

So according to Strong's, God said "let Us produce a man in our image" and "God miracled a man". See?

That's not a football team. That's a pick-up game. If you want to make a team, you take a bunch of people and you train them. You teach them how to work together, and you give them certain roles. And yes, you did just make something new that did not exist before. You took a bunch of individuals, you assigned them each a job, and you made them into a unit that works together. And you made them into a football team, not a basketball team and not a team of speed sewing seamstresses. Just like God made us in God's image for a specific purpose.

Did I say that Bible is a science textbook? LOL. Of course the word make is not necessarily biological. But people are biological, are we not? Also, I have a question for you. Since you agree that a person is not a scientific concept, why are you trying to explain how humans came to be with science?

Look, I wanted to show you something and leave you to think about it. I show a thing to 2 people independently of each other and ask them to draw what they see.

Person 1 draws this:
View attachment 344994

Person 2 draws this:
View attachment 344995

Did they draw the same thing?

Look, I wanted to show you something and leave you to think about it. I show a thing to 2 people independently of each other and ask them to draw what they see.

Person 1 draws this:
View attachment 344994

Person 2 draws this:
View attachment 344995

Did they draw the same thing?

It sounds like the first person drew a square and the second drew a circle. But they were attempting to draw the same original object.

 

[sfs]

And that's it. So we can move on now, knowing that Imago dei has nothing to do with science.

If you haven't already read it, you might be interested in Richard Middleton's book on the image of God: Amazon.com

 

[sfs]

I am just referring to a soul. You do believe that we have a soul, right? And that our soul is not material?

Short answer: no, I don't. That is, I don't believe in souls as entities detachable from our bodies that contain our essence as persons and that include our reasoning abilities, our memories, and our emotions. As I noted earlier, this is very much a Greek idea, one that is quite foreign to pre-hellenistic Hebrew thought. In early Jewish thought, what's sometimes translated 'soul' was the whole person, including body, thought, and emotions. For Greeks of the classical period and later, on the other hand, the soul was an early attempt at a scientific understanding of how living things worked. And not just 'the' soul -- in its fully elaborated form, humans had three souls, the vegetative, sensitive, and rational souls. We now have better models for how humans live, act, and think. You're still free to posit a human soul as a distinct entity, of course, but it's not clear what this soul does, since thought, feeling, and emotion are clearly dependent on bodies, especially brains.

Think sets again. Species is a set of individuals. If every member of the set (individual) is a person, and every person is eligible for salvation, then the entire set (species) is eligible for salvation. It’s just math.

Sure, I understand that's your belief. My issue with it is that you're defining membership in the set based on one characteristic (being biologically a member of Homo sapiens) and then assigning a second trait (eligible for salvation) to all members of that set even though there's no obvious connection between the set-defining trait and salvation. You could equally define the set as all H. sapiens over the age of two.

Sure. I havent read his book, but I considered a similar idea. What if a very advanced member of a homo species gave birth to a genius boy and girl who have a brain capable of understanding all of the concepts I listed above. So is Adam’s mom a person or an animal? I am sure you see the moral issue here? Calling your mom an animal just because she is not as smart as you? I mean, personally I would rather believe that Adam did not have a mom than deal with that moral implication.

No, I don't see any moral issue. You're the one who thinks humans have an immaterial soul. Presumably you think that soul does something, something important that sets humans apart. Those who don't have souls are people in your sense. Would you see a moral issue with thinking that an artificially intelligent machine didn't have a soul and wasn't a person?

 

[olgamc]

So this question here is like asking, how did people evolve to make up a football team. Me appointing people to fill roles of a team, isn't about evolution. It's not about anatomy either. Puppies play in the puppy bowl each year on their own football teams.

It's just not about biology or material origins. It's more about being chosen for a purpose.

Really? So let me get this straight. You want to build a world winning football team. You go to some random high school and pick whoever volunteers, because of course you are not concerned with anything physical. You get a few big sporty bullies, a few scrawny robotics geeks, and a few beautiful kids from horrible families whose minds and bodies have been destroyed by substance abuse. You work with them and pour into them and train them physically and mentally. You create a world winning football team. What does your team look like? Did they not all become healthier people physically and mentally?

Have you thought about my question with the circle and the square?

 

[Job 33:6]

Really? So let me get this straight. You want to build a world winning football team. You go to some random high school and pick whoever volunteers, because of course you are not concerned with anything physical. You get a few big sporty bullies, a few scrawny robotics geeks, and a few beautiful kids from horrible families whose minds and bodies have been destroyed by substance abuse. You work with them and pour into them and train them physically and mentally. You create a world winning football team. What does your team look like? Did they not all become healthier people physically and mentally?

Have you thought about my question with the circle and the square?

Well, mankind in God's image also includes people who are sinful and broken. So no, I wouldn't exclude the weak from my team. Gods football team isn't one that wins via physical attributes.

You can be a part of God's football team even if you have no arms or legs. You just have to be appointed by Him.

I think I did respond to the circle and square question. I'll check.

 

[olgamc]

Short answer: no, I don't. That is, I don't believe in souls as entities detachable from our bodies that contain our essence as persons and that include our reasoning abilities, our memories, and our emotions.

Interesting. So when your body dies, you die, your memories get erased, you cease to exist? Do you believe in resurrection? What do you make of the transfiguration where Moses and Elija appeared with Jesus, and they were still Moses and Elija even though their bodies were long gone?

As I noted earlier, this is very much a Greek idea, one that is quite foreign to pre-hellenistic Hebrew thought. In early Jewish thought, what's sometimes translated 'soul' was the whole person, including body, thought, and emotions. For Greeks of the classical period and later, on the other hand, the soul was an early attempt at a scientific understanding of how living things worked. And not just 'the' soul -- in its fully elaborated form, humans had three souls, the vegetative, sensitive, and rational souls. We now have better models for how humans live, act, and think. You're still free to posit a human soul as a distinct entity, of course, but it's not clear what this soul does, since thought, feeling, and emotion are clearly dependent on bodies, especially brains.

Exactly. God built us a physical body as an appropriate house for our soul. They are very much interwoven. One of God’s attributes is that He knows right and wrong. We are made in His image. We have capacity to know right and wrong. Our brain has that ability. It’s a physical function of our brain that gives us that particular God attribute.

When God changes me to be more Christ-like, He literally physically rewires my brain. Agree?

Sure, I understand that's your belief. My issue with it is that you're defining membership in the set based on one characteristic (being biologically a member of Homo sapiens) and then assigning a second trait (eligible for salvation) to all members of that set even though there's no obvious connection between the set-defining trait and salvation. You could equally define the set as all H. sapiens over the age of two.

You are correct, that is an arbitrary decision and we could technically make a different assignment. This is were our God given moral awareness comes in. Would it be right to say that not all Homo sapiens are equally human? Hitler comes to mind. As well as my own father, who looked down on his mom because she wasn’t as smart as him.

No, I don't see any moral issue. You're the one who thinks humans have an immaterial soul. Presumably you think that soul does something, something important that sets humans apart. Those who don't have souls are people in your sense. Would you see a moral issue with thinking that an artificially intelligent machine didn't have a soul and wasn't a person?

An ai does not have a soul and is not a person, correct. But I would definitely see an issue with treating a humanoid robot as a person made in God’s image. As well as treating people the same as chimpanzees or chimpanzees the same as people. Do you not have an issue with that? Should we give chimps the right to vote? Or should we be able to unplug people at will, like we can unplug ai?

 

[olgamc]

Well, mankind in God's image also includes people who are sinful and broken. So no, I wouldn't exclude the weak from my team. Gods football team isn't one that wins via physical attributes.

Actually, sinful and broken is not a part of being made in God’s image. It’s the way God’s image got distorted when we learned evil. But yes, I completely agree with you, we wouldn’t disqualify any kid from joining a team. But as we train up these kids for the purpose of football, their bodies do change, agree? As well as their brains - their mental health improves. Same with God’s purpose - as God trains us up as members of His team, our souls change (we become more Christ-like), along with our brains literally physically getting rewired. Agree?

Also, let me point out that we did start with a qualification. Every kid on our team is a human. No animals on our team, right?

You can be a part of God's football team even if you have no arms or legs. You just have to be appointed by Him.

I think I did respond to the circle and square question. I'll check.

 

[olgamc]

It sounds like the first person drew a square and the second drew a circle. But they were attempting to draw the same original object.

Ok good. Now we introduce the two people to each other. One says the thing that we saw is a circle, it has no straight lines and no angles.. The other says no no no, the thing that we saw is a square. It has only straight lines and angles. Do they contradict each other? Who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, sinful and broken is not a part of being made in God’s image. It’s the way God’s image got distorted when we learned evil. But yes, I completely agree with you, we wouldn’t disqualify any kid from joining a team. But as we train up these kids for the purpose of football, their bodies do change, agree? As well as their brains - their mental health improves. Same with God’s purpose - as God trains us up as members of His team, our souls change (we become more Christ-like), along with our brains literally physically getting rewired. Agree?

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this. It's not about anatomy. It didn't say that God did training or anything like that. He simply chose us.

Also, let me point out that we did start with a qualification. Every kid on our team is a human. No animals on our team, right?

I guess I can agree here.

 

[olgamc]

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this. It's not about anatomy. It didn't say that God did training or anything like that. He simply chose us.

You are arguing with yourself. The team is your own analogy. I am using your own definition of make. Now you say it’s not make a team, not make a recipe, but more like choose a team or choose a recipe? But that’s not what the Bible says. There is a distinct difference between making a recipe and choosing a recipe. Bible says “do/make/produce/accomplish” in verse 26 and “created/fashioned/made a new/miracle” in verse 27.

Also, yes, you keep trying to make a point that Bible is all spiritual and science is all physical and they are separate and you can't combine the two. Ok, so person 1 draws a circle. Person 2 draws a square. Who is right, who is wrong?

I guess I can agree here.

Right. So if Genesis 1:26-27 used the words “appoint” and “dedicated”, then I would agree with you that it’s not an account of creation. But it doesn’t. It uses words “make” and “created”.

Besides, "chose" doesn't make sense in this context. Can you imagine if you are a cook and you see a bunch of cupcakes and you say "I choose these cupcakes to be sweet". What? You can't choose a cupcake to be sweet (an immaterial taste attribute) without first having made it sweet by adding a material sugar. We are material beings. We also have immaterial attributes. They work together. Which, ironically, is your own point to begin with - that Moses did not separate material and immaterial. Moses was right. Why are you separating them?

 

[Job 33:6]

You are arguing with yourself. The team is your own analogy. I am using your own definition of make.

Yes, to make. The ancient isrealites obviously aren't tossing a ball around. God is doing the making. But making, as said numerous times, is used routinely in non-material creation. Such as creating a team.

Now you say it’s not make a team, not make a recipe, but more like choose a team or choose a recipe?

When you make something, you are acting. You are doing something. If I make a football team, I am also choosing or appointing or selecting, or making something for a purpose etc.

But that’s not what the Bible says. There is a distinct difference between making a recipe and choosing a recipe. Bible says “do/make” in verse 26 and “created/fashioned/made a new/miracle” in verse 27.

Do I need to go back and share all the translations with you...again?

Choosing is doing.

Or what if I were to make a woman my bride. I'm simultaneously doing something. I'm choosing my bride. Make the sun for seasons, I'm choosing the sun or assigning the sun, or creating the sun to do something. To make or do.

Right. So if Genesis 1:26-27 used the words “appoint” and “dedicated”, then I would agree with you that it’s not an account of creation. But it doesn’t. It uses words “make” and “created”.

that's just an English translation. The Hebrew terms are no different. It's just one concept.

you can't say, "my English translation says X, therefore your English translation is wrong". That's not how it works. You look at how the word is used to understand what the word means.

so if create is used in non material ways, such as creating a team, then it's not about material origins.

and appointing a team is how you make a team.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are arguing with yourself. The team is your own analogy. I am using your own definition of make. Now you say it’s not make a team, not make a recipe, but more like choose a team or choose a recipe? But that’s not what the Bible says. There is a distinct difference between making a recipe and choosing a recipe. Bible says “do/make” in verse 26 and “created/fashioned/made a new/miracle” in verse 27.

Also, yes, you keep trying to make a point that Bible is all spiritual and science is all physical and they are separate and you can't combine the two. Ok, so person 1 draws a circle. Person 2 draws a square. Who is right, who is wrong?


Right. So if Genesis 1:26-27 used the words “appoint” and “dedicated”, then I would agree with you that it’s not an account of creation. But it doesn’t. It uses words “make” and “created”.

Imagine if a woman looked at a man and said, I'm going to make you my husband. Or I made you my husband.

 

[olgamc]

Imagine if a woman looked at a man and said, I'm going to make you my husband. Or I made you my husband.

Exactly. We don't make our spouses. We choose our spouses and they choose us. God made us. He also chose us. But first He made us. He made us for the purpose for which He was going to choose us. Our purpose - to rule creation. What qualifies us for that purpose? The attribute of being made in God's image.

Imagine if a woman looked at another woman or at a child or at a chimpanzee and said I am going to choose you as my husband. No! The person first has to qualify to be a husband before he can be chosen as a husband. He has to be a human adult male, at minimum.

Regarding words. I don't know how many times we can share hebrew words with each other. If you looks at Strongs for Genesis 1:27:

created
וַיִּבְרָ֨א (way·yiḇ·rā)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 1254: 1) to create, shape, form 1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) 1a1) of heaven and earth 1a2) of individual man 1a3) of new conditions and circumstances 1a4) of transformations 1b) (Niphal) to be created 1b1) of heaven and earth 1b2) of birth 1b3) of something new 1b4) of miracles 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to cut down 1c2) to cut out 2) to be fat 2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

and say that it means "chose" - I mean, I just don't really know where to go from here. Where do you even see chose?

----
Oh! I found it! Here is the link. I see the word "choose" in 2 Samuel 12:17. Of all the references listed on that page, that is literally the only place where that word is used as "choose" vs "create". I mean, if we skip the Genesis references because those are the ones in question, and only look at the others - there are 14 references altogether and only 1 of them is translated as "choose". Why did you decide to use that for Genesis?

The context in 2 Samuel 12:17 is food. It is translated as "he would not eat", indicating a choice or a refusal to do something and in line with the 2nd meaning of the word - to be fat, to make yourselves fat.

 

[sfs]

Interesting. So when your body dies, you die, your memories get erased, you cease to exist?

That would be the earlier Jewish belief, yes.

Do you believe in resurrection?

That's my best understanding of traditional Christian doctrine -- bodily resurrection, not bodiless spirits. As for what I think is true: I have no idea. I trust in God but have little faith in any particular theological constructs. Certainly not enough to throw out the immense amount of data supporting common descent because it contradicts a very specific strand of the much broader Christian theological spectrum.

Exactly. God built us a physical body as an appropriate house for our soul. They are very much interwoven.

And yet most of those faculties are present in animals who don't have souls. What exactly is it that souls add?

An ai does not have a soul and is not a person, correct.

But it's a problem for you if Adam's mother didn't have a soul and wasn't a person. Why?

 

[olgamc]

That would be the earlier Jewish belief, yes.

That's my best understanding of traditional Christian doctrine -- bodily resurrection, not bodiless spirits. As for what I think is true: I have no idea. I trust in God but have little faith in any particular theological constructs. Certainly not enough to throw out the immense amount of data supporting common descent because it contradicts a very specific strand of the much broader Christian theological spectrum.

You should join my conversation with Job 33:6 about a circle and a square. I am trying to illustrate a point, and if you bear with me, hopefully you will understand. You do not have to throw out any scientific knowledge.

And yet most of those faculties are present in animals who don't have souls. What exactly is it that souls add?

My soul is what makes me me. I don't know how else to describe it. When I am resurrected, I am not going to be a bodiless spirit. I will have a new physical body, a different body with different physics, just like Jesus had a material body that could be physically touched and felt, but it was physically and biologically different because it was immortal and it could appear and disappear and ascend and such. But He was still Jesus. Moses was still Moses. Elija was still Elija. I am still going to be me.

But for this conversation I theorize that one function of a human soul is the ability to be saved through faith. Which ties into the kind of administrative functioning (meta-cognitive), that only homo sapiens possess.

But it's a problem for you if Adam's mother didn't have a soul and wasn't a person. Why?

I said it already - supremacy issues. Hitler. Slavery. My own dad and his relationship with my grandma. What if we found Adam's mom's dna and decided to clone her? She is a homo sapien, presumably, same as you and me. Would she have human rights?

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly. We don't make our spouses.

You can make a person your spouse.

Making, the subject doesn't even have to be the object. Just like the psalmist makes the moon for seasons and months and years.

Or, think of it this way, I can have a collection of cakes, and I can pick out one of those cakes and can make it for someone's birthday. Right.

Selection, to make the cake for something, doesn't require that I actually do any baking beforehand.

We choose our spouses and they choose us. God made us. He also chose us.

You're leaving scripture again. The Bible doesn't say how God manufactured our material bodies.

But first He made us. He made us for the purpose for which He was going to choose us. Our purpose - to rule creation.

Just like if I pick out a cake from the store and make that cake for someone's birthday, doesn't mean I actually baked it.

Or if I went to the toy store and I looked at a teddy bear on a shelf and said "I'm going to make you a gift for my niece".

You can make things without material manufacturing.

What qualifies us for that purpose? The attribute of being made in God's image.

Imagine if a woman looked at another woman or at a child or at a chimpanzee and said I am going to choose you as my husband. No! The person first has to qualify to be a husband before he can be chosen as a husband. He has to be a human adult male, at minimum.

And whatever that qualification is, the Bible doesn't say clarify on it.

Regarding words. I don't know how many times we can share hebrew words with each other. If you looks at Strongs for Genesis 1:27:

created
וַיִּבְרָ֨א (way·yiḇ·rā)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 1254: 1) to create, shape, form 1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) 1a1) of heaven and earth 1a2) of individual man 1a3) of new conditions and circumstances 1a4) of transformations 1b) (Niphal) to be created 1b1) of heaven and earth 1b2) of birth 1b3) of something new 1b4) of miracles 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to cut down 1c2) to cut out 2) to be fat 2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

and say that it means "chose" - I mean, I just don't really know where to go from here. Where do you even see chose?

We've already covered this. Bara is to make or to do, it is used interchangeably with Asah. Trying to act like verse 26 doesn't exist is not productive to the discussion.

----
Oh! I found it! Here is the link. I see the word "choose" in 2 Samuel 12:17. Of all the references listed on that page, that is literally the only place where that word is used as "choose" vs "create". I mean, if we skip the Genesis references because those are the ones in question, and only look at the others - there are 14 references altogether and only 1 of them is translated as "choose". Why did you decide to use that for Genesis?

Again, stop ignoring the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can make a person your spouse.

Making, the subject doesn't even have to be the object. Just like the psalmist makes the moon for seasons and months and years.

Or, think of it this way, I can have a collection of cakes, and I can pick out one of those cakes and can make it for someone's birthday. Right.

Selection, to make the cake for something, doesn't require that I actually do any baking beforehand.


You're leaving scripture again. The Bible doesn't say how God manufactured our material bodies.



Just like if I pick out a cake from the store and make that cake for someone's birthday, doesn't mean I actually baked it.

Or if I went to the toy store and I looked at a teddy bear on a shelf and said "I'm going to make you a gift for my niece".

You can make things without material manufacturing.


And whatever that qualification is, the Bible doesn't say clarify on it.



We've already covered this. Bara is to make or to do, it is used interchangeably with Asah. Trying to act like verse 26 doesn't exist is not productive to the discussion.



Again, stop ignoring the Bible.

bara': choose

Psalm 89, God bara north and south.
Isaiah 43:15, God bara Isreal.
Isaiah 43:7, God bara the seed of Isreal
Isaiah 45:8, God bara righteousness
Isaiah 57:19 God creates the fruit of the lips
Psalm 51:12, God baras a clean heart in the psalmist

Etc. I'm not going to sit here and lay it all out again. The terms are used interchangeably and even bara is consistently used for not material things.

 

[olgamc]

bara': choose

Psalm 89, God bara north and south.

Psalm 89:12 - Created

Isaiah 43:15, God bara Isreal.

“The creator”

Isaiah 43:7, God bara the seed of Isreal

Created, formed and made

Isaiah 45:8, God bara righteousness

I the Lord have created it

Psalm 51:12, God baras a clean heart in the psalmist

Psalm 51:10 - create in me a clean heart

Etc. I'm not going to sit here and lay it all out again. The terms are used interchangeably and even bara is consistently used for not material things.

Alright. Deal. If genesis 1:26-27 do not mean create, let’s stop this conversation.