I've conceded that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful mechanically

Philonephius · Sep 3, 2012

Gottservant said:
I will read the post above, in a moment: but I have interesting news:: I have been formally asked not to further try to help Evolution, apparently it is hard enough to understand as it is, without someone complicating it with moral issues - or something like that.

It is a dead theory, and I have been asked to move on!

Dead theory? It is accepted by virtually all scientists, including ones that aren't even trained in applicable friends (e.g. biology).

Who "formally asked" you to move on? This strikes me as rather creepy.

Gottservant · Sep 13, 2012

Ah!.. some guy, I took it as a sign from God.

The point is, Evolutionists are fundamentally either full of bravado, or completely insecure, and if what they think Evolution is starts to crumble, they default to being insecure defensive: meaning there is no fundamental foundation to the theory.

I said "What happens if you start to evolve shock?" and this guy freaked out and said "You are taking Evolution where it doesn't need to go" something like that. I think he figured I was going to start moralizing - in fact, subsequent to that I worked out that you can talk to Evolutionists about principle by suggesting that some people deserve to be "fitter" first and not last (which must have been exactly what they were fearing I would ask!).

I've sort of come down from the high of debating it now, I deliberately take a break, when it's clear I am inventing more perspective than they are willing to accept is relevant.

My most recent thought has been that perhaps people should think about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil evolving. Can you imagine it? I have got a fish interested already. Thankful I am gradually learning not to be rude in the process!

SkyWriting · Sep 14, 2012

gluadys said:
So, our laws protect the rights of some apes, but not all apes.

Human law and animal law are legally separate.
Each state has legally declared that humans are not animals.

SkyWriting · Sep 14, 2012

Gottservant said:
I'm mostly looking for constructive criticism, following my decision to acknowledge that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts.

Evolution is a fact of life and how we see life coping with Sin.
But if it was intended to illuminate our origins, the scriptures
could easily have laid that foundation.

Like "The strongest shall inherit the earth" or some such.
But instead we get stories about how God can use the meekest
among us to accomplish greatness. That's not the evolution
story. Evolution is simply how life deals with a fallen world.
It's not a model for the origins of man. The Bible is.

Keachian · Sep 14, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Human law and animal law are legally separate.
Each state has legally declared that humans are not animals.

Legality has bearing on neither science nor theology, in both cases we are animals.

Smidlee · Sep 15, 2012

progmonk said:
Legality has bearing on neither science nor theology, in both cases we are animals.

Laws themselves imply man is more than an animal. It is written Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels and not a little above an animal. The scripture does refer to fallen man without God sometimes as a beast.

Keachian · Sep 15, 2012

Smidlee said:
Laws themselves imply man is more than an animal. It is written Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels and not a little above an animal. The scripture does refer to fallen man without God sometimes as a beast.

Laws may or may not be a part of what makes us Imago Dei, but what is most important is that God made us such, out of all the creatures he formed out of the ground God made humanity the very image of God.

SkyWriting · Sep 16, 2012

progmonk said:
Legality has bearing on neither science nor theology, in both cases we are animals.

I'm afraid so. Science experiments are bound by laws that are separate for humans and for animals. Laws do address the practice of religion as well as science. And theology is clear on the separation of men and animals. There are very strict laws regarding how science interacts with animals as well separate laws on how science interacts with humans.

So nothing you said follows any logic. Perhaps I'm reading wrong.

Keachian · Sep 16, 2012

SkyWriting said:
I'm afraid so. Science experiments are bound by laws that are separate for humans and for animals. Laws do address the practice of religion as well as science. And theology is clear on the separation of men and animals. There are very strict laws regarding how science interacts with animals as well separate laws on how science interacts with humans.

So nothing you said follows any logic. Perhaps I'm reading wrong.

You seem to be saying that the legal system classes humans and animals in distinct categories, I'm saying that this--whether it is true or not--has no bearing on science nor theology which both place humans as a subset of animals and therefore as in a subset of living things.

Science says that man has come to manipulate his environment for his own benefit
Theology says that man is a representation of God on earth and so has co-authority over his environment with God.

However both are still quite clear on the fact that humans remain animals, and humans remain living things.

Papias · Sep 17, 2012

Smidlee wrote:

It is written Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels and not a little above an animal.

Could you cite the verse, so we can look at it?

The only scripture I know of that addresses the question of whether humans are animals explicitly says that humans are indeed animals :

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

Eccl. 3.

Papias

Papias · Sep 17, 2012

Oops, sorry, duplicate post. ______________________________

Smidlee wrote:

It is written Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels and not a little above an animal.

Could you cite the verse, so we can look at it?

The only scripture I know of that addresses the question of whether humans are animals explicitly says that humans are indeed animals :

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

Eccl. 3.

Papias

Smidlee · Sep 18, 2012

Papias said:
Oops, sorry, duplicate post. ______________________________

Smidlee wrote:

Could you cite the verse, so we can look at it?

The only scripture I know of that addresses the question of whether humans are animals explicitly says that humans are indeed animals :
I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

Eccl. 3.

Papias

This is another good example of pick out a verse without looking at the context. This is where studying the Bible is important. Anyone who has study Ecclesiastes will notices certain phases "Under the sun" and " I said in my heart..."
"I said in my heart..." was not to be taken as gospel since Solomon make it clear in 1:12 "And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness and folly..."

Keachian · Sep 18, 2012

really all you need is Gen 2 to show that man is Biblically an animal:

Gen 2:7
וייצר יהוה אלהים את־האדם עפר מן־האדמה ויפח באפיו נשׁמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפשׁ חיה׃

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:19.
ויצר יהוה אלהים מן־האדמה כל־חית השׂדה ואת כל־עוף השׁמים ויבא אל־האדם לראות מה־יקרא־לו וכל אשׁר יקרא־לו האדם נפשׁ חיה הוא שׁמו׃

Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.

Interestingly enough these two verses also show that God created man and beast in the same way, out of the same material. Now let's look at the verse that Smidlee wants to use and see whether it contradicts this:

The specific reference that Smidlee wants to use is Hebrews 2:5-9

Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere,
What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

We see here the argument in part for Christ's deity, and in part of his humanity, but that's not how Smidlee wants to use it, however there is no mention of animals here in relation to Jesus' position over creation. However the writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 8 so let's have a look at that as well:

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babes and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Here we have the contrast between men and animals a bit, it harkens back to Genesis 1 where God says to man: Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. but we still haven't seen something where man is explicitly said to be not an animal.

SkyWriting · Sep 19, 2012

Papias said:
The only scripture I know of that addresses the question of whether humans are animals explicitly says that humans are indeed animals :

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

Eccl. 3. Papias

In our fallen state, we are equal with the animals. It takes effort to accept that we are made in God's image and have a higher source.

SkyWriting · Sep 19, 2012

progmonk said:
really all you need is Gen 2 to show that man is Biblically an animal:

Gen 2:7
וייצר יהוה אלהים את־האדם עפר מן־האדמה ויפח באפיו נשׁמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפשׁ חיה׃

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Jesus did not die for the animals. Easy to tell the difference.
We don't eat people.

SkyWriting · Sep 19, 2012

progmonk said:
However both are still quite clear on the fact that humans remain animals, and humans remain living things.

You've not made a convincing case that God's children are animals.
HOW things are made do not define the result. If that were true, the scriptures
would just be another collection of scratch paper. The process of making a Bible
is similar to that of making a comic book. So the Bible is a subset of comic books.

Do the SCRIPTURES treat men and animals as different or equals?
Man is food and Jesus died for oxen?

Papias · Sep 19, 2012

Smidlee wrote:

This is where studying the Bible is important. Anyone who has study Ecclesiastes will notices certain phases "Under the sun" and " I said in my heart..."

"I said in my heart..." was not to be taken as gospel since Solomon make it clear in 1:12 "And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness and folly..."

Ah, so the "I said" part means that it is just the author himself, not the Holy Spirit, speaking, right? Is that what you are saying?

Papias

Smidlee · Sep 19, 2012

Papias said:
Smidlee wrote:

Ah, so the "I said" part means that it is just the author himself, not the Holy Spirit, speaking, right? Is that what you are saying?

Papias

"I said in my heart" surely isn't the same as "Thus saith the Lord" found in the prophetic books.

Keachian · Sep 19, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Jesus did not die for the animals. Easy to tell the difference.

That's part of us being in the image of God, that doesn't avoid the fact that the same word is used for animals as it is for man.

We don't eat people.

We eat Christ don't we?

Smidlee · Sep 19, 2012

progmonk said:
That's part of us being in the image of God, that doesn't avoid the fact that the same word is used for animals as it is for man.

We eat Christ don't we?

Nope. Just like when I was born again I didn't re-enter my mother's womb.

I've conceded that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful mechanically

Newbie

God loves your words, may men love them also

The Librarian

The Librarian

On Sabbatical

Veteran

On Sabbatical

The Librarian

On Sabbatical

Listening to TW4

Listening to TW4

Veteran

On Sabbatical

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Listening to TW4

Veteran

On Sabbatical

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency