Jesus said "he who is faithful in what is least, is faithful in much" - Evolution? Or in need of it?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but the words of Jesus on incremental changes, is actually pretty clear: if you have enough of the initial requirement, the fuller difference can be expected. Jesus describes it, in terms of faith, but you could easily translate it, to be talking about "Evolution": he who keeps making small steps, will eventually make the leap that Evolution requires. I mean you can see the connection, can't you?

Perhaps what you see, is another opportunity for "Evolution": that if you change the translation of the words, over to other phrases, enough, eventually you will do without the need to keep the original words? I'm not saying that would be fair or unfair, at all - I guess what I am asking, is what would it take for you to embrace wisdom? When it comes to Evolution, it seems that Jesus is not silent, why not embrace that?

The point is, in a sense Jesus said "it's not necessary to change my words, they will always be remembered, as they are" - the emphasis being 'not necessary', you can change the words, if you want, but that adds to the lexicon, it doesn't switch places with other things that have been said. This immutability is what is crucial to "Evolution", because it allows you to scientifically gauge how much is introduced change, compared to emergent change, when it comes to the 'evolved' aspect of the scientific lexicon.

To be blunt, what you could do, is vary wording of "he who is faithful" until you get a contradiction "he who is not faithful" and then begin to extrapolate how many steps are needed to bring the new phrase in accordance with truth, in terms of consistency - until "he who is not faithful" becomes "he who is not faithful, is not faithful in much". This change being a necessary change, on the basis of earlier alterations, that are not in contradiction to further truth being possible (in the sense, that you could alter it to say "he who cannot be faithful" and therefore not simply be "not faithful" as a consequence).

This is really making words work, including the words of the scientific lexicon around Evolution. It shows that there are contingencies between words, that can have dependably predictable relationships with other words. It is not for example, possible that some words of faith be remembered and not therefore "much", since the truth that Jesus Christ brings to life, is that they have an immutable relationship. It is this immutability that contributes most to Jesus' words not passing away, as He said they could not.

Perhaps also then, you can see why Christians are reluctant to embrace unfettered change of what they believe, when what they believe has not been acknowledged in principle, as justifying that immutability (in the case of 'Evolution' specifically, as in others, similarly). I mean can you find "diamonds" (which Jesus' words were, in a sense) and then want the coal they are found in more? You could, but it would be a lot of coal! I'm not even against forgetting the words of Jesus, from time to time, but what I find in most cases is: while I have been neglecting the words of Jesus, I have been missing out!

Now you are thinking, "what if I mixed Jesus' words up at random?" Technically that would not ultimately change the value of the pre-existing words, it would just make them hard to find. This really is one of the graces of the words of Jesus: Jesus is always able to find you, through the words you use, compared to His. Jesus keeps His silence. He does not compromise His silence, to make a point. I would even go so far as to say, it is ok to mutate the words of Jesus, if you do not mutate the silence specifically. I stake my words on that.

This requires discernment, but there is "hope" - you still have time to begin to keep the words of Jesus, in all of their "immutable" sense!

I hope that helps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're mixing biological science and theology again. Two incredibly opposite and different things. No wonder nothing makes sense to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is a fact and does not require faith.

 

[Larniavc]

Hi there,

So I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but the words of Jesus on incremental changes, is actually pretty clear: if you have enough of the initial requirement, the fuller difference can be expected. Jesus describes it, in terms of faith, but you could easily translate it, to be talking about "Evolution": he who keeps making small steps, will eventually make the leap that Evolution requires. I mean you can see the connection, can't you?

Perhaps what you see, is another opportunity for "Evolution": that if you change the translation of the words, over to other phrases, enough, eventually you will do without the need to keep the original words? I'm not saying that would be fair or unfair, at all - I guess what I am asking, is what would it take for you to embrace wisdom? When it comes to Evolution, it seems that Jesus is not silent, why not embrace that?

The point is, in a sense Jesus said "it's not necessary to change my words, they will always be remembered, as they are" - the emphasis being 'not necessary', you can change the words, if you want, but that adds to the lexicon, it doesn't switch places with other things that have been said. This immutability is what is crucial to "Evolution", because it allows you to scientifically gauge how much is introduced change, compared to emergent change, when it comes to the 'evolved' aspect of the scientific lexicon.

To be blunt, what you could do, is vary wording of "he who is faithful" until you get a contradiction "he who is not faithful" and then begin to extrapolate how many steps are needed to bring the new phrase in accordance with truth, in terms of consistency - until "he who is not faithful" becomes "he who is not faithful, is not faithful in much". This change being a necessary change, on the basis of earlier alterations, that are not in contradiction to further truth being possible (in the sense, that you could alter it to say "he who cannot be faithful" and therefore not simply be "not faithful" as a consequence).

This is really making words work, including the words of the scientific lexicon around Evolution. It shows that there are contingencies between words, that can have dependably predictable relationships with other words. It is not for example, possible that some words of faith be remembered and not therefore "much", since the truth that Jesus Christ brings to life, is that they have an immutable relationship. It is this immutability that contributes most to Jesus' words not passing away, as He said they could not.

Perhaps also then, you can see why Christians are reluctant to embrace unfettered change of what they believe, when what they believe has not been acknowledged in principle, as justifying that immutability (in the case of 'Evolution' specifically, as in others, similarly). I mean can you find "diamonds" (which Jesus' words were, in a sense) and then want the coal they are found in more? You could, but it would be a lot of coal! I'm not even against forgetting the words of Jesus, from time to time, but what I find in most cases is: while I have been neglecting the words of Jesus, I have been missing out!

Now you are thinking, "what if I mixed Jesus' words up at random?" Technically that would not ultimately change the value of the pre-existing words, it would just make them hard to find. This really is one of the graces of the words of Jesus: Jesus is always able to find you, through the words you use, compared to His. Jesus keeps His silence. He does not compromise His silence, to make a point. I would even go so far as to say, it is ok to mutate the words of Jesus, if you do not mutate the silence specifically. I stake my words on that.

This requires discernment, but there is "hope" - you still have time to begin to keep the words of Jesus, in all of their "immutable" sense!

I hope that helps.

You wouldn’t be faithful in the sense of religiosity because new evidence could show our understanding of evolution to be wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is a fact and does not require faith.

Facts require a little bit of faith, if they didn't you wouldn't know how to interpret them (in principle)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Facts require a little bit of faith, if they didn't you wouldn't know how to interpret them (in principle)

No, you don't need faith for a fact. A fact is a fact.

 

[Gottservant]

You're mixing biological science and theology again. Two incredibly opposite and different things. No wonder nothing makes sense to you.

I am taking what is universally immutable, and trying to be informed.

If Evolution cannot learn from the impassable, it cannot establish the more desired contingency.

Perhaps you are trying to build character, living in denial (not necessarily of yourself, but of other truth) - I can't tell?

 

[Gottservant]

No, you don't need faith for a fact. A fact is a fact.

To repeat myself, you don't need a lot of faith (but you do need some).

That's the whole point of "faith", you find a little here, a little there and gradually a bigger picture emerges.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am taking what is universally immutable, and trying to be informed.

If Evolution cannot learn from the impassable, it cannot establish the more desired contingency.

Perhaps you are trying to build character, living in denial (not necessarily of yourself, but of other truth) - I can't tell?

Evolution is the biological change in a creatures genetic makeup in response to external environmental pressures.
It does not need to learn because it cannot learn. It is not a being or a thing with a mind. It is a process, simple as that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To repeat myself, you don't need a lot of faith (but you do need some).

That's the whole point of "faith", you find a little here, a little there and gradually a bigger picture emerges.

You might need faith for things, but faith is not needed for a fact. A fact is a thing that is known to be true or proven to be true.

 

[Gottservant]

You might need faith for things, but faith is not needed for a fact.

So you claim, without reference to a specific fact.

A fact is a thing that is known to be true or proven to be true.

Truth pertains to witness; proof pertains to belief.

You are basically saying "if it's not one, it is the other" which doesn't actually clarify in what way a faith in fact, must operate (to be effectual)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you claim, without reference to a specific fact.

The specific fact is evolution.

Truth pertains to witness; proof pertains to belief.

You are basically saying "if it's not one, it is the other" which doesn't actually clarify in what way a faith in fact, must operate (to be effectual)

The fact is that evolution is true. Biological evolution is a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Facts require a little bit of faith, if they didn't you wouldn't know how to interpret them (in principle)

Nope, no faith needed since facts tend to be repeatable.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is the biological change in a creatures genetic makeup in response to external environmental pressures.
It does not need to learn because it cannot learn. It is not a being or a thing with a mind. It is a process, simple as that.

Yes but even a process works more effectively if its operant components are able to be meaningfully arrayed?

The lift of a plane wing, is a process - but I can still describe the resistance around the wing, the effect of pressure, the impact on gravity -- none of these things are hidden because it is a process.

I get the feeling, you would like a "private interpretation" of 'Evolution' that you can maintain and remain unquestioned upon - Jesus said 'we don't have that luxury'.

There is sadly, no possibility of a final transition to another definition of species - once you destroy the genome in the hope of rebuilding it, the cocoon is your only chance to make a meaningful change and 'Evolution' doesn't guarantee a cocoon other than the now non-existent selection pressures of the beginning (of Creation).

Seriously, show me the cocoon that was needed in previous emergences of species from previous emergences and I will believe that man is capable of becoming a butterfly under the right conditions - I'm not saying the same cocoon as a butterfly, I'm saying enough of a cocoon for the same genome to express different creatures of the same panspermia. It still doesn't clarify, what sort of cocoon is needed for what sort of outcome, but at least (when you establish the cocoon) you then have some sort of foundation, for a single species to work out new emergences? To evolve beyond ape beginnings?

Jesus didn't take that route - of the necessity of new emergences; He said "you must be born again", implying that you need to forget your Evolutional history, and start from scratch. If you never do this - start again - there is always going to be an element of doubt, that you may not have 'evolved' enough, that your 'process' is being interfered with. It is a reckoning (between past and greater) but it is a reckoning you can't escape. It is not that it is impossible to be a predator, with an unwanted past, it's that the hunt will never purely be the hunt, if you are still unstable about what gave you your hunger.

 

[Gottservant]

The specific fact is evolution.

No, that is the theory.

No wonder you tell me I don't make sense, you basically want every fact to be identified as the same (to every other fact).

The fact is that evolution is true. Biological evolution is a fact.

Yes, but true to what?

Lift on an aircraft wing, is "true" to the wing. It is not "true" to something that looks like a wing, but can't function like it (a wing).

I feel like you want to say "I am an aircraft wing, lift defines me" but you say "aeronautically, without reference to the blueprint" (when that is the whole point of the blueprint, not that you have to fly a certain way, within reason, but that you can't get off the ground at all, without reference to the meaning of aeronautics).

 

[Gottservant]

Nope, no faith needed since facts tend to be repeatable.

Technically, facts are iterable, not repeatable - you can have a set of repetitions, but not a set of iterances.

That's what's so confusing about Evolution: you keep saying, "the next iterance will somehow define, the available repetitions" (when it is not possible for a single iterance, to predictably define anything almost)

I get that you want to take a gamble on "Evolution", and God is pleased that you want to do it, in strength - but meaningfully you don't get to reframe the contest, every time it looks like you might be accountable, for what you have got already (without becoming another species). Adam and Eve tried to hide themselves in the Garden of Eden (when they had sinned), appealing to greater and greater is basically the same thing, but it is hilarious, on the way to being far more than 'tragic' (really! Heed the warning!).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Technically, facts are iterable, not repeatable - you can have a set of repetitions, but not a set of iterances.

That's what's so confusing about Evolution: you keep saying, "the next iterance will somehow define, the available repetitions" (when it is not possible for a single iterance, to predictably define anything almost)

I get that you want to take a gamble on "Evolution", and God is pleased that you want to do it, in strength - but meaningfully you don't get to reframe the contest, every time it looks like you might be accountable, for what you have got already (without becoming another species). Adam and Eve tried to hide themselves in the Garden of Eden (when they had sinned), appealing to greater and greater is basically the same thing, but it is hilarious, on the way to being far more than 'tragic' (really! Heed the warning!).

Adam and Eve never existed. And it is hard to understand your response. It appears to be partially based upon a strawman of evolution so I do not understand what you are trying to claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes but even a process works more effectively if its operant components are able to be meaningfully arrayed?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question really shows, again, that you do not understand evolution.

And the rest of your comment is just absolutely nonsensical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, that is the theory.

No wonder you tell me I don't make sense, you basically want every fact to be identified as the same (to every other fact).

In science, a theory is a description of a fact. A basic error on your part but not wholly forgivable.

Yes, but true to what?

True to science and the evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution is the biological change in a creatures genetic makeup in response to external environmental pressures.
It does not need to learn because it cannot learn. It is not a being or a thing with a mind. It is a process, simple as that.

True. But having said that, there are suggestions that the genetic mechanisms behind evolution have evolved the capacity to generalise in a way that could be characterised as learning (a kind of genetic meta-adaptation). See How Evolution Learns to Generalise. Whether the really means that the process itself has 'learned' or not seems like a question of one's point of view.