Nature of Man

Assyrian · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
This contradicts the distinction made in the Biblical account in Genesis 1 and 2 between man and animals.

What distinctions are you talking about?

That man is made in God's image and likeness? I have no problem with that, though I also find aspects of God's likeness in much of his creation, after all he did compare himself to a lion, lamb, fruit tree, eagle and chicken.

That there is something about the spirit that God breathed into us that is uniquely of God? Gen 2:7 then the LORD God... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Again I have no problem with that. As Ecclesiastes suggests, our spirit returns to God when we die, while the spirit of an animal simply returns to the dust.

That Genesis describes God God creating man and animals the same way?
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens...
We have been telling you God made us all the same way and you don't believe us.

That Genesis uses the same term to describe man and animals, basically the OT phrase for animal, living creature?
Gen 2:7 and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:19 ...And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis says we are animals created the same way God created all the other animals. That really isn't a problem for TEs.
The other way the phrase can be translate is living soul, which is even more of a shock for creationist to think of animals as having or being souls. But then that is what the word animal means, it is from the Latin anima soul.

Then we have the distinction in Gen 1&2 that all the beasts and birds are made before God made man in Genesis 1 but the all the birds and beasts are made after God made man in Genesis 2. Not a problem for the way TEs interpret the text but Creationists have a real problem here and have to abandon the plain meaning of the text and force their interpretation onto scripture.

Your version of special creation becomes a construct that you force onto scripture.

Actually my bible doesn't mention "special creation" at all. Are you sure it is not a construct Creationists have made up and read more into than the text says?

The Lady Kate · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God. We image God in a different way to the completeness with which Christ does it. But Free agency, Moral culpability, rational thought, artistic creative abilities would distinguish us from animals for instance. Animals are not made in the image of God.

So, whatever distinguishes us from animals is "the image of God," with some vague references to Jesus tossed in for good measure?

Very TE, we evolve to an understanding above the Almighties, we ascend to a place higher than the throne of God.

Now where did I say anything like that?

If you're going to respond to the things you wish I said rather than the things I actually say, this discussion is going to end up equal parts futile and pointless.

This is not about a version of spiritual maturity that can disregard the meaning of the Bible Text for the sake of its own reading of what constitutes progress or self-improvement.

But the Bible is not read for the sake of its own reading... the reason we read it is so that we may improve. Why set up arbitrary roadblocks such as literalism?

Nor I. What is reductionist is the assertion of these speculative theories over and above the scriptural version of mans origins and essential dignity by rereading the text to fit the scientific consensus.

The "scientific consensus" is based on careful observation of God's own handiwork... why disregard it?

This misreading of scripture constitutes a reduction in the dignity of man by failing to recognise the primacy of the Divine in that dignity

I disagree on two levels... one, it's not a misreading to read allegory as allegory, and two, at no point is the primacy of the Divine missed.

The primary evidence here - where science is not qualified to speak with any certainty is scripture

Scripture is evidence... of what?

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

Willtor said:
Haha! Sure.

Anyway, this radical distinction between humans and other animals makes sense from a theological perspective, but it is indefensible apart from that. So, indeed, the Genesis account teaches there is something interesting and special about humanity's ability to relate to God. But if you're looking at natural history or the human genome or whatever else for it, you won't find it. Thus, I say that humans are both a special creation of God and yet do not have a separate natural origin from the rest of the animals.

Indefensible is a little strong considering we are still waiting for the monkeys to put a chimpanzee on the moon.

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

ebia said:
I couldn't say, because I'm not regarding scientific argument as primary. But I would say that there is no substantive difference in the the understanding of Image of God between thoughtful Christians regardless of position on evolution. I would say that "image of God" is far more often forgotten except as lip service amongst literalists than TEs.

Regarding the meaning of the image of God you may well be right and there is no need to build unnecessary walls between us.

You argue as if to suggest that the theology is primary to you rather than the science. But the TE view you epouse dates from the Darwinist challenge to the literalist hermeneutic of most Christians in Darwins times. The archaeological discoveries such as Enuma Elish and the works of Lyle on geology may also be significant here. Personally I doubt you or just about any other TE here would be a TE now if were not for the Origin of species and accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the mid to late nineteenth century. That you have since convinced yourself that you hold the position you do for good sound theological reasons is like the literature that has been produced in defence of this position an afterthought. In this sense the culture shift that the change in the scientific consensus induced is primary. If the scientific consensus changed I wonder how long it would take for TEs to become extinct.

gluadys · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Personally I doubt you or just about any other TE here would be a TE now if were not for the Origin of species and accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the mid to late nineteenth century.

Just as you and most Christians would still be using a geocentric model of the universe if not for the work of Copernicus, Galileo, et al and the accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the 16th to 17th century.

At the time, many people were theologically opposed to this new idea, but in time we adjusted our theology and our interpretations of scripture to accommodate the new science.

In this sense the culture shift that the change in the scientific consensus induced is primary. If the scientific consensus changed and wonder how long it would take for TEs to become extinct.

About as long as it would take for the scientific consensus to change. Because TEs recognize the provisional nature of scientific consensus and do not tie their theology irrevocably to a specific scientific consensus, they can be flexible in the face of scientific changes. After all, the important grounding for theology is scripture not science.

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

crawfish said:
I would argue that what the bible mentions as special creation does not involve process. I believe that this is a much more faithful reading of the scripture, based on what the original human author intended, than a reading from 20th century "rational" sensibilities.

Which leads to a misconception about TE's - that we are "reading scripture with a filter of modern science". This is untrue - since we reject that God was trying to place a modern, scientific worldview into scripture, we read scripture with NO deference to science. We read it a spiritual revelation of God to a human author, who penned that revelation in terms of his own history, culture, experiences and worldview. YEC's and OEC's, however, have adopted the concordist view - that scripture is written to express a scientific truth that was then-yet-uncovered. For instance, a YEC will read the verse
This is what God the LORD says--he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
and believe this is God giving knowledge of an expanding universe. A TE would read this and believe the author was referring to the skies as they would appear to the original human author, i.e. stretched out to every horizon in every direction.

Some certainly does, but much YEC theology is based on misinterpretations of scripture - a systematic theology where a base assumption is made and interpretation is guided by that assumption. I think a different hermeneutical approach is entirely called for, and in the end it does not alter the gospel of grace one bit.

I'm a TE who is not a scientist and does not need to answer to any secular scientific authority. Most of my closest friends are either creationists or those who don't know either way (and don't really care). Life would be easier for me if I'd accept OEC or YEC, but I would not be honest with myself if I did. There is enough evidence to prove to me that YEC is not possible, and OEC makes little sense. Either God created the universe over billions of years, or He created it to appear that way; and either way, YEC science is bunk and the secular scientists are closer to the truth.

I don't fool myself about the deceptive nature scientists OR theologians. I've seen enough dishonest, deceptive and misleading tactics used by YEC proponents that I do not trust them. I do not trust any individual scientist, but I do feel that the scientific method pretty much ensures that bad science will die. If evolutionary theory was a bunch of bunk and scientists knew it, then it would die a certain death (and would still not "prove" to atheists that there was a God). In the end, too many questions posed by things we know cannot be answered adequately by ID scientists for me to feel any other way.

I am a Creationist for traditional and scriptural reasons and not least because the TE endeavour to render the Genesis account scientifically irrelevant strikes me as a coping mechanism and a retreat from historical engagement. The observations the current scientific consensus makes contradict the traditionally accepted view of creation. People phrase the choice as being atheism or a dishonest version of Christianity. Since they cannot become atheists they escape into a theological Narnia of literary and theological truthes separated from historical reality.

However I do not think that it is an honest appraisal of the scientific evidence to say that the scientific method has rendered the Biblical account incredible. What is incredible is that the scientific method is being used at all at such a great distance in time from the things it purports to understand. The evidence is lost, degraded or simply echoes from the main event. The way things appear may well be consistently observed by scientists and rogue theories that do not fit this appearance may well be rejected by the consensus. But at this distance we simply cannot say with any degree of certainty that the way things consistently appear match the way they actually were. Science has produced so many practical benefits people have come to believe its methodology can be applied to resolve any problems. Quite simply it cannot regarding remote cosmology, origins or even the nature of a man.

I am not pushing any scientific descriptions. I hold YEC views when they appear in accordance with scripture. Regarding the science I am an extreme sceptic of anybodies attempt to argue by scientific methodology alone about our origins.

The Lady Kate · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Regarding the meaning of the image of God you may well be right and there is no need to build unnecessary walls between us.

Then why do you persist?

You argue as if to suggest that the theology is primary to you rather than the science. But the TE view you epouse dates from the Darwinist challenge to the literalist hermeneutic of most Christians in Darwins times.

Science has often butted heads against religious literalism... and won.

The archaeological discoveries such as Enuma Elish and the works of Lyle on geology may also be significant here. Personally I doubt you or just about any other TE here would be a TE now if were not for the Origin of species and accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the mid to late nineteenth century. That you have since convinced yourself that you hold the position you do for good sound theological reasons is like the literature that has been produced in defence of this position an afterthought. In this sense the culture shift that the change in the scientific consensus induced is primary. If the scientific consensus changed and wonder how long it would take for TEs to become extinct.

The alternative being.... what? Close our eyes and pretend these discoveries never happened?

The Lady Kate · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
I am a Creationist for traditional and scriptural reasons and not least because the TE endeavour to render the Genesis account scientifically irrelevant strikes me as a coping mechanism and a retreat from historical engagement.

If Genesis was never intended to be scientifically relevent, then why shouldn't it be scientifically "irrelevent"?

The observations the current scientific consensus makes contradict the traditionally accepted view of creation.

Then the time is long overdue for traditions to change.

People phrase the choice as being atheism or a dishonest version of Christianity.

People any different from yourself?

Since they cannot become atheists they escape into a theological Narnia of literary and theological truthes separated from historical reality.

Or worse, they attempt to rewrite historical reality to assuage their own vanity.

I am a TE because I choose none of those options.

However I do not think that it is an honest appraisal of the scientific evidence to say that the scientific method has rendered the Biblical account incredible.

Biblical account of what? There are many Biblical accounts of many events in all 66 books...

What is incredible is that the scientific method is being used at all at such a great distance in time from the things it purports to understand. The evidence is lost, degraded or simply echoes from the main event.

Actually, the evidence is all around us. Why ignore it?

The way things appear may well be consistently observed by scientists and rogue theories that do not fit this appearance may well be rejected by the consensus.

Theories which do not fit the facts are discarded... why do you see this as a bad thing?

But at this distance we simply cannot say with any degree of certainty that the way things consistently appear match the way they actually were.

Why, except to assuage vanity, should we assume they do not?

Science has produced so many practical benefits people have come to believe its methodology can be applied to resolve any problems.

It hasn't failed yet.

Quite simply it cannot regarding remote cosmology, origins or even the nature of a man.

For that, we turn to philosophy and theology... but if what we can conceive contradicts what we know is and must be, then our conceptions are nothing but vanity.

I am not pushing any scientific descriptions. I hold YEC views when they appear in accordance with scripture. Regarding the science I am an extreme sceptic of anybodies attempt to argue by scientific methodology alone about our origins.

Do you think YEC views augment scientific methodology, or sabotage it?

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

Assyrian said:
What distinctions are you talking about?

That man is made in God's image and likeness? I have no problem with that, though I also find aspects of God's likeness in much of his creation, after all he did compare himself to a lion, lamb, fruit tree, eagle and chicken.

That there is something about the spirit that God breathed into us that is uniquely of God? Gen 2:7 then the LORD God... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Again I have no problem with that. As Ecclesiastes suggests, our spirit returns to God when we die, while the spirit of an animal simply returns to the dust.

That Genesis describes God God creating man and animals the same way?
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens...
We have been telling you God made us all the same way and you don't believe us.

That Genesis uses the same term to describe man and animals, basically the OT phrase for animal, living creature?
Gen 2:7 and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:19 ...And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis says we are animals created the same way God created all the other animals. That really isn't a problem for TEs.
The other way the phrase can be translate is living soul, which is even more of a shock for creationist to think of animals as having or being souls. But then that is what the word animal means, it is from the Latin anima soul.

Then we have the distinction in Gen 1&2 that all the beasts and birds are made before God made man in Genesis 1 but the all the birds and beasts are made after God made man in Genesis 2. Not a problem for the way TEs interpret the text but Creationists have a real problem here and have to abandon the plain meaning of the text and force their interpretation onto scripture.

Think you are forcing a chronology onto Genesis 2 that is not there. While Genesis 1 describes a definite time frame Genesis 2 speaks in terms of the phenomenological experience of God creation of man and the ways in which God and his creation interacted with the man. In both chapters man has dominion over the animals. The animals are brought to him and named by him.

God clearly has a special regard for animals, breathing life into them and rescuing a whole boat load of them with Noah. But man is higher and dominates. When man is sinful very often God orders the destruction of the animals associated with him also.

The images of God analogy was an interesting one. But these were analogous - like a bear rather than exact descriptions. The images attempt to describe the indescribable and bring extra insight into the Divine which is not merely human.

That animals and humans were both made out of the ground. That an an examination of our genetic material reveals deep similiarities is undeniable. However a mans nature is much more than these building blocks and I guess this spark of the divine which animates his life makes all the difference. This OP was intended to tease out exactly what that extra something that sets a man above a beast is. In the end its essence lies in the capacity for a realtionship with the Divine which God has built into our natures. Its the thing that is lost when a person dies but the hardware is still sitting there all in tact. It is the creative difference between a Leonardo and a chimpanzee. Science cannot describe it or explain it but theology can.

Actually my bible doesn't mention "special creation" at all. Are you sure it is not a construct Creationists have made up and read more into than the text says?

By special creation I mean that our origins are in the creation of the first man by a direct act of God. That there were no intermediary stages on the way to that creation.

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

gluadys said:
Just as you and most Christians would still be using a geocentric model of the universe if not for the work of Copernicus, Galileo, et al and the accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the 16th to 17th century.

At the time, many people were theologically opposed to this new idea, but in time we adjusted our theology and our interpretations of scripture to accommodate the new science.

In this case we were right to adjust and with the accumulation of evidence that followed the case is irrefutable about a heliocentric view of our solar system for instance.

About as long as it would take for the scientific consensus to change. Because TEs recognize the provisional nature of scientific consensus and do not tie their theology irrevocably to a specific scientific consensus, they can be flexible in the face of scientific changes. After all, the important grounding for theology is scripture not science.

Glad to hear you guys are open to change when confronted by overwhelming evidence as am I.

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

The Lady Kate said:
The alternative being.... what? Close our eyes and pretend these discoveries never happened?

The observations of Darwin and Lyle and the archaeological discoveries and historical criticism movement in Germany all raised necessary questions. This was a time when the benefits of science were all too obvious. One became an advanced and powerful nation by the application of scientific methodology. Science knew no limits and reached beyond itself.

So no, one should not ignore these things, but one should get them into proper perspective. Having done so they no longer appear to be the earth shattering events many have since come to interpret them as.

mindlight · Sep 7, 2009

The Lady Kate said:
Do you think YEC views augment scientific methodology, or sabotage it?

I do not think scientific methodologies are the appropriate method to use to discuss things about which little of any certainty can be worked out e.g. origins, remote cosmology and the extra something that distinguishes mans nature from that of the beasts.

There is only one eyewitness to creation and the account he gives us is in scripture. It's the only primary evidence we have.

So it does not matter to me if they augment or sabotage them. Scientists are really not qualified to be a part of the conversation by virtue of merely being scientists.

crawfish · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Glad to hear you guys are open to change when confronted by overwhelming evidence as am I.

Good to know that. So, I guess the only difference between us is that you'll require a bit more evidence than we already have to come to my conclusions.

ebia · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Regarding the meaning of the image of God you may well be right and there is no need to build unnecessary walls between us.

You argue as if to suggest that the theology is primary to you rather than the science. But the TE view you epouse dates from the Darwinist challenge to the literalist hermeneutic of most Christians in Darwins times. The archaeological discoveries such as Enuma Elish and the works of Lyle on geology may also be significant here. Personally I doubt you or just about any other TE here would be a TE now if were not for the Origin of species and accompanying shift in scientific understanding of the mid to late nineteenth century.

Without the enlightenment none of us would be framing the discussion the way it is currently framed. The YEC position is at least guilty of taking on the post enlightenment assumptions while the TE position is an attempt to put them in their proper place.

That you have since convinced yourself that you hold the position you do for good sound theological reasons is like the literature that has been produced in defence of this position an afterthought. In this sense the culture shift that the change in the scientific consensus induced is primary. If the scientific consensus changed I wonder how long it would take for TEs to become extinct.

The realisation that we need to get back to some of the pre-enlightenment ways of reading literature and to get beyond the enlightenment's obsession with "hard objective facts" over meaning and of literal and plain over metaphor, symbol and myth will survive independently of scientific dating of the world's origins.

The Lady Kate · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
The observations of Darwin and Lyle and the archaeological discoveries and historical criticism movement in Germany all raised necessary questions. This was a time when the benefits of science were all too obvious. One became an advanced and powerful nation by the application of scientific methodology. Science knew no limits and reached beyond itself.

I disagree. I don't think science has reached beyond anything... at least nothing that wasn't completely arbitrary.

So no, one should not ignore these things, but one should get them into proper perspective. Having done so they no longer appear to be the earth shattering events many have since come to interpret them as.

They never were particularly Earth-shatterng... except for those whose view of Earth was excessively fragile.

The Lady Kate · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
I do not think scientific methodologies are the appropriate method to use to discuss things about which little of any certainty can be worked out e.g. origins, remote cosmology and the extra something that distinguishes mans nature from that of the beasts.

I think they are.

There is only one eyewitness to creation and the account he gives us is in scripture. It's the only primary evidence we have.

And this is why your theology is fundamenally flawed... the assumption that the creation account is in fact a first-hand eyewitness testimony distorts scripture into something it is not.

So it does not matter to me if they augment or sabotage them. Scientists are really not qualified to be a part of the conversation by virtue of merely being scientists.

And they are not disqualified by virtue of your say-so.

Assyrian · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Think you are forcing a chronology onto Genesis 2 that is not there. While Genesis 1 describes a definite time frame Genesis 2 speaks in terms of the phenomenological experience of God creation of man and the ways in which God and his creation interacted with the man. In both chapters man has dominion over the animals. The animals are brought to him and named by him.

Wow, you think I am forcing things into Genesis 2 when you turn it into a "phenomenological experience"
to deny the simply order laid out in the narrative. Creationists insist Genesis 2 is history, but the deny the order of events in their historical record. But phenomenological experience? Isn't that reading early 20th century existential philosophy into an ancient Hebrew text? Anyway, whose phenomenological experience was it when God formed Adam from dust, or put Adam to sleep to from Eve from a rib? Wasn't Adam awake when it says 'So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field' why isn't that part of Adam's phenomenological experience after the phenomenological experience of naming all the animals?

God clearly has a special regard for animals, breathing life into them and rescuing a whole boat load of them with Noah. But man is higher and dominates. When man is sinful very often God orders the destruction of the animals associated with him also.

No problem with God giving man dominion over the earth, or man disobeying God.

The images of God analogy was an interesting one. But these were analogous - like a bear rather than exact descriptions. The images attempt to describe the indescribable and bring extra insight into the Divine which is not merely human.

Yet there must be something in the nature of the eagles and lions God created that mean they can be used to give insight into their creator. Was it an accident they turned out that way, or did God know when he created these animals that he was forming in them aspects that he could use to show what he was like? I especially like Jesus comparing himself to a chicken gathering it chicks under her wings, the self sacrificial love of a mother hen illustrates the love of the chicken's creator, that has got to be the God who is love forming the chicken in some way in his image.

That animals and humans were both made out of the ground. That an an examination of our genetic material reveals deep similiarities is undeniable. However a mans nature is much more than these building blocks and I guess this spark of the divine which animates his life makes all the difference. This OP was intended to tease out exactly what that extra something that sets a man above a beast is. In the end its essence lies in the capacity for a realtionship with the Divine which God has built into our natures. Its the thing that is lost when a person dies but the hardware is still sitting there all in tact. It is the creative difference between a Leonardo and a chimpanzee. Science cannot describe it or explain it but theology can.

But none of this depend on Leonardo's hardware not sharing a common ancestor with the chimps.

By special creation I mean that our origins are in the creation of the first man by a direct act of God. That there were no intermediary stages on the way to that creation.

The problem is the bible does not use the term special creation, and by coming up with an extra biblical term you turn an interpretation of Gen 2 into a doctrine that can be nailed to the mast. If you look through scripture you will find the image of God as a potter making us from clay, or saying God made us from dust, yet none of us deny we have a mother and father and claim there were no intermediary steps in our creation. Genesis 2 is the only place where the picture of God forming people from clay is taken literally and it is insisted that this must be the meaning of the text.

Willtor · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
Indefensible is a little strong considering we are still waiting for the monkeys to put a chimpanzee on the moon.

Are you identifying the ability to go to the moon as Imago Dei? Is _that_ what differentiates us from the animals?

Assyrian · Sep 7, 2009

mindlight said:
In this case we were right to adjust and with the accumulation of evidence that followed the case is irrefutable about a heliocentric view of our solar system for instance.

The church adjusted to heliocentrism with much less evidence than we have for evolution. So I do not see why they were justified for following the evidence while you think you should reject much more evidence for evolution.

Creationist arguments would have worked just as well in the seventeenth century. The evidence does not support heliocentrism we both have the same evidence we just interpret it differently. Astronomers read the evidence through their heliocentrist presuppositions. Astronomy has its roots in Astrology and that is of the devil. So what if astronomers predicted stellar parallax, geocentrism explains too, the designer simply chose to make the stars wobble. God makes pendulums wobble too. True science is science you can measure and study in a lab, astronomers claim planets are pulled by gravity but you cannot go into space to test it, you might as well travel back in time as travel in space. Gravity pulling objects to the ground is testable in a lab, no one have ever shown macro gravity can pull objects towards the sun, or that macro gravity can make objects move in a circle.

If the church had stuck by their literal interpretation and used these arguments to convince themselves science was wrong, they would still have been preaching gencentrism when Russians and Americans showed they could guide rockets through space and into orbit around the moon using Newtons laws and the gravity which operates in space like the heliocentrists said, and Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon and was held in place by its gravity.

mindlight · Sep 8, 2009

crawfish said:
Good to know that. So, I guess the only difference between us is that you'll require a bit more evidence than we already have to come to my conclusions.

Yes exactly and this also concerns what constitutes credible evidence.

Nature of Man

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The Lady Kate

Guest

See in the dark

See in the dark

Legend

See in the dark

The Lady Kate

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Veteran

Senior Contributor

The Lady Kate

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

See in the dark

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency