How would a TE look forward?

[juvenissun]

And that is exactly what we have been saying is the case in a TE perspective. Salvation will always apply to all humans no matter how far back or forward in time we go.

No no. In evolution, the existence of Homo Sapiens is time bounded. If the salvation applies to Homo Sapiens, it should not apply to other species in the Homo genus (have I said it right this time?).

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, juvie, but it IS the point. You ask ridiculous questions about evolution because you refuse to learn and understand the basics of evolution.

It is not as if this has not been presented to you before. You just let it run off you like water off a duck and go back to your original misconceptions.

Ha ha, sorry. As I gradually feel the need of all memory power I still have in order to do my real job, I try not to hold on anything which seems have no immediate use. Hey, if necessary, I can always go back to dig it out. Right?

 

[Joykins]

No no. In evolution, the existence of Homo Sapiens is time bounded. If the salvation applies to Homo Sapiens, it should not apply to other species in the Homo genus (have I said it right this time?).

We do not know the plan of salvation for other species. Only our own.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No no. In evolution, the existence of Homo Sapiens is time bounded.

Really? What's the upper bound?

If the salvation applies to Homo Sapiens, it should not apply to other species in the Homo genus (have I said it right this time?).

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

We do not know the plan of salvation for other species. Only our own.

Christian theology says there is no such plan. They do not get saved.

It is because of TE, such strange theological question needs to be considered. That implies: TE is very strange. It does not fit into Christianity. In fact, it does not fit into any known religion. (same reply to Tinker Grey)

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry. Wrong place.

 

[Joykins]

Christian theology says there is no such plan. They do not get saved.

Either the theology guesses they do not need salvation (because they are not human they do not sin) or it says we don't know. Either way it is not our business; we are instructed in the proper treatment of non-human animals.

It is because of TE, such strange theological question needs to be considered. That implies: TE is very strange. It does not fit into Christianity. In fact, it does not fit into any known religion. (same reply to Tinker Grey)

It is a side issue. C.S. Lewis spent a while thinking about it though.

 

[atomweaver]

It is because of TE, such strange theological question needs to be considered. That implies: TE is very strange. It does not fit into Christianity. In fact, it does not fit into any known religion. (same reply to Tinker Grey)

Hurray! And in only seven pages. Juvenissun, gluadys told you that back in post #2;

Why would one even attempt to formulate eschatology with the spirit (or doctrine) of evolution. ? Evolution is not a theological category.

In fact, gluadys also told you why "such strange theological questions" don't really need to be considered at all...

 

[Mallon]

I think juvie's confusion about humans evolving out of Christ's gift of redemption stems from his confusion concerning evolutionary theory.
juvie, according to the Bible, what makes us human is the fact that we bear the image of God. This is not a phenotypic trait, so it cannot be selected either for or against by evolutionary forces. Our lineage may continue to evolve -- and it will -- but we will never out-evolve the image of God. It is passed on from generation to generation, and as such, our descendants will always be redeemable, so long as God sees fit.
(Of course, if you think bearing the image of God has something to do with the way you look, I can understand your concerns. This is an entirely unbiblical position, however.)

 

[juvenissun]

Hurray! And in only seven pages. Juvenissun, gluadys told you that back in post #2;





In fact, gluadys also told you why "such strange theological questions" don't really need to be considered at all...

Not exactly. She referred to E. And I am talking about TE. In this forum, you do not separate T from E.

 

[juvenissun]

I think juvie's confusion about humans evolving out of Christ's gift of redemption stems from his confusion concerning evolutionary theory.
juvie, according to the Bible, what makes us human is the fact that we bear the image of God. This is not a phenotypic trait, so it cannot be selected either for or against by evolutionary forces. Our lineage may continue to evolve -- and it will -- but we will never out-evolve the image of God. It is passed on from generation to generation, and as such, our descendants will always be redeemable, so long as God sees fit.
(Of course, if you think bearing the image of God has something to do with the way you look, I can understand your concerns. This is an entirely unbiblical position, however.)

I am satisfied with all the responses I got in this thread. Thanks to everyone. The rest of it is simply a continuation of argument.

According to your argument, the salvation might perfectly fall upon apes rather than on us (only a fraction of a second difference in time of evolution). Apes were made in God's image (Adam and Eve were apes) and we are simply evolutional descendants of apes and still have the salvation available to us.

It is a quite distorted theology of Christianity.

 

[Mallon]

According to your argument, the salvation might perfectly fall upon apes rather than on us (only a fraction of a second difference in time of evolution). Apes were made in God's image (Adam and Eve were apes) and we are simply evolutional descendants of apes and still have the salvation available to us.

It is a quite distorted theology of Christianity.

It's only distorted when you distort it.
No one here has argued that either Adam or Eve were non-human apes. As I said before, bearing the image of God is what makes us human. Therefore, Adam and Eve, being the first bearers of God's image, were human. They were human apes, as we are today.
Really, it's not that hard. You're just trying to find problems where there are none.

 

[Melethiel]

I am satisfied with all the responses I got in this thread. Thanks to everyone. The rest of it is simply a continuation of argument.

According to your argument, the salvation might perfectly fall upon apes rather than on us (only a fraction of a second difference in time of evolution). Apes were made in God's image (Adam and Eve were apes) and we are simply evolutional descendants of apes and still have the salvation available to us.

It is a quite distorted theology of Christianity.

Um....what?

Nobody here has said that Adam and Eve were non-human apes. In fact, quite the opposite - we have specified that Adam and Eve were the first HUMANS endowed with the image of God (which is not physical).

 

[Assyrian]

It's good for those that survive it... be it Noah and his family during the Flood, the Jewish firstborn sons during Passover, mammals during the K-T extinction event or Christians during the End Times.

Yeah. Thank God for Chicxulub

 

[juvenissun]

It's only distorted when you distort it.
No one here has argued that either Adam or Eve were non-human apes. As I said before, bearing the image of God is what makes us human. Therefore, Adam and Eve, being the first bearers of God's image, were human. They were human apes, as we are today.
Really, it's not that hard. You're just trying to find problems where there are none.

This is a side point. So you do not interpret that we are God-like figuratively, but literally. Right?

If you see it figuratively, such as love, peace, etc. then the same could be applied to apes. (same argument to Melethiel)

 

[gluadys]

This is a side point. So you do not interpret that we are God-like figuratively, but literally. Right?

If you see it figuratively, such as love, peace, etc. then the same could be applied to apes. (same argument to Melethiel)

I am not sure what you are saying here. I do agree that we literally bear the image of God. The image of God is not physical because, literally, God is not physical. God is Spirit. So literally the image of God is spiritual in nature and has nothing to do with the physical structure of the body.

 

[atomweaver]

Not exactly. She referred to E. And I am talking about TE. In this forum, you do not separate T from E.

Why, because you say so? As nearly all of the TEs on this forum assert that Evolution is not a theological category, I don't see how you can justify mashing the two together as you do. You presume to know how TEs think, but you're initial assumptions are inaccurate... you ignore the offered input of actual TEs refusing to revise those initial assumptions, and so of course your conclusions about TE are faulty. You need to listen more to those you are attempting to understand, juvenissun. Your fixation with your own ideas about TEs are getting in the way of that fundamental process, here.

 

[Assyrian]

If you see it figuratively, such as love, peace, etc. then the same could be applied to apes. (same argument to Melethiel)

Not just apes, chickens too.

Jesus compared his love for Jerusalem to a mother hen, sounds to me that this means chickens bear something of the image of their creator. God regularly compared himself to a lion. But he made lions too, and they are in some degree like him. Do lions bear something of the image of God?

 

[juvenissun]

Not just apes, chickens too.

Jesus compared his love for Jerusalem to a mother hen, sounds to me that this means chickens bear something of the image of their creator. God regularly compared himself to a lion. But he made lions too, and they are in some degree like him. Do lions bear something of the image of God?

OK, I accept yours and Glaudy's arguments.

However, when God uses clay to mold Adam, don't you think God has a best physical form for Adam in His mind? God is formless. But if God wants to take a physical form, would He be like us. So, even God is not confined to any single physical form, but if we want to use a form to describe God, it would be the human form, instead of forms as lion or chicken.

Even this can not define what God's image is, but it would be one of a good literal interpretations (or content) to so called "God's image". And we can say it loud that "we HAVE the (physical) image of God"

Think about this from another angle: Does angel have a physical form in heaven? Would we have a physical form in heaven? Could we recognize who is angel and who is human in Heaven? If yes, then we MUST have a form there.

 

[Assyrian]

If the bible does speak of God's physical form, what does it tell us about it?
Psalm 17:8 hide me in the shadow of your wings...

Do you think you would recognise the invisible God by his shape?