No one can transform their soul in their own strength, Evolution is pride

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I've got this reasoning in my head that goes like this: no one can transform their soul in their own strength, therefore Evolution is pride (and nothing more). The idea being that as a snare, Evolution is dangerous and setting appropriate limits to that snare is important, the same way a hunter will remember carefully where he has hidden a snare, so that he himself does not get caught in it. I think this is something like the Wisdom of Jesus say "Remember Lot's wife" in other words, remember the limit of what you're capable of, what you're tempted by. From this, I get that Jesus must have had a slightly different snare in mind than Evolution, simply because he would have said "remember the fall of satan" otherwise, but instead we have Lot's wife, which is more emblematic of the state of society post fall. It's as if Jesus expected us to live on beyond the fall that Evolution represents.

But is there any efficacy in even communicating this limit to Evolution, as an indicator of its pride, well, no. Don't cast your pearls before swine, right? There is no way to convince someone - who is not curious - that Evolution is any more or less of a snare than anything else (and no doubt I will get replies that it is not (a snare - let the reader take note) for this very reason), so I think the thing is to be aware that they will be caught and there is nothing you can do for them, if the real hunter the Devil, is after them. Certainly you can try to free them from the snare, but only if they admit their pride. This really is the starting point, which is why I stress that it seems wise to work it out, to actually state "yes, Evolution is a roundabout way of saying "I'm proud, proud of my ability to adapt and evolve"". In saying this, I suppose (and I'm educating myself here) it makes sense to make prey aware of the hunter, if possible, but not so as to panic, but rather, if caught and not admitting pride then, less so, so as to bless the life of the prey as it is devoured by the hunter, for whom the snare was set in place.

In a way this is sad, that many indeed a great many cannot be saved, but that is the way of it, since not everyone who tries gets in to Heaven, much less those who do not consider themselves in danger of being snared. We must remind ourselves in this, that it is not for us to decide who should be saved and who not, but that it is in the Lord's hand and for Him and Him only to decide and direct who should be where in relation to the snare and how close they can get.

The only thing I have never really understood, is... what is in the snare that is so attractive? You get called an ape, you get told you have to give up on your honour, you get told there is no way for you to believe, it all seems rather pessimistic and uninviting and in return? What? You get to be an animal of some description that is more or less evolved at some point down the track when you are not even around to enjoy it? It doesn't really make a lot of sense, perhaps that is part of its appeal, I don't know. I just wanted to be clear, at least for my own sake, that Evolution is not a toy.

Thankyou.

 

[Gottservant]

I think the thing about transforming your soul is that...

...only a soul completely transformed, can enjoy the joys of Heaven, before even Heaven is gone

I mean this is like the difference between believing you have all the money in the world and believing you have all the money in the world and actually spending some of it, you know?

 

[mark kennedy]

I mean this is like the difference between believing you have all the money in the world and believing you have all the money in the world and actually spending some of it, you know?

That's actually an apt analogy for righteousness:

What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; Gen. 15:6)​

We are in a debtors prison, God pays the debt. We hit the street broke we're libel to end up right back where we started.

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Rom. 5:20)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Your reply inspired something in me, thankyou.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Hi Gottservant, I'll go ahead and bite even though it seems (to me) to be a little underhanded for you to assume that anyone that disagrees with you is already lost to the Devil. In a post about not being proud that seems a little odd to me. But here goes.

so I think the thing is to be aware that they will be caught and there is nothing you can do for them, if the real hunter the Devil, is after them.

Aside from the pride issue mentioned above, I find it rather interesting that you grant the Devil so much power in this matter. By believing in evolution, you automatically are forever ensnared by the Devil and there is no hope for you? This seems rather final to me. While there certainly are traditions that state that some are doomed to hell from the very beginning (indeed the careful observer will notice that I am from a Calvinist tradition) I am curious if this is what you mean. Are you truly saying that an individual who believes in evolution already has the Devil's grips on them to such an extent that no matter what change of heart they may have they will be doomed to hell?

Beyond that I wanted to clarify a few points. Evolution does not and has never claimed that by my own power I become stronger. That's not the point. It's actually quite the opposite really. Evolution states basically two things:

1. Those individuals in a species that are not well adapted (i.e. those animals that are weak) die out. They don't get stronger by some sort of mental fortitude. No one is claiming that an Aardvark with a short tongue can somehow will itself to have a longer tongue in order to reach ants that have scurried into logs. No. Rather, that aardvark might starve for having the weakness of a short tongue.

2. Animals that are fortunate enough to have attributes that are useful will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes to their children. So, if our aardvark had been born with a long tongue, he would be more likely to not starve when the ants scurry into the log. He would, by not starving, be much more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on the genes of long-tonguedness. Either way, the aardvark is not achieving a long tongue by any effort of his own. It's not like one day he has a short tongue and pridefully thinks that he would be a better animal if he had a long one and through effort of his own grew his tongue.

Though it also should be noted that even if this was how it worked, it would hardly be a bad thing. We do (and should) make decisions all the time regarding the betterment of ourselves. We try to improve our lifestyle, we do healthy habits. I for one am an avid runner. I do it to improve my body. As someone that comes from a family with bad hearts and cholesterol, I run because running has a physical change on my body. It makes my heart stronger and removes bad things from my body. Is it prideful for me to have the audacity to exercise in order to make myself healthy?

Of course, this improvement on my body doesn't change my genes, my daughter still suffers from the same family history of weak hearts and cholesterol. But you seem to be thinking that evolution, a theory that you don't agree with, states that through my effort I could make an improvement to my genes and pass better genes onto my daughter. Clearly, this is a bit unfair because you don't agree with the theory, but why do you label that as pride? If hypothetically, I could improve my genes by exercising regularly and that would make my daughter more likely to be born healthy, wouldn't I have the moral obligation to do that? Far from being pride, wouldn't that be what every ethical father would do?

Of course, it's a moot point because that's not how evolution works anyway, but it is interesting that even if the theory did say what you thought it said it still wouldn't, in my opinion, be prideful because it wouldn't be about selfishly improving yourself, but rather about unselfishly giving of yourself to improve the life of your offspring. Sounds pretty nice to me actually.

The only thing I have never really understood, is... what is in the snare that is so attractive? You get called an ape, you get told you have to give up on your honour, you get told there is no way for you to believe, it all seems rather pessimistic and uninviting and in return? What? You get to be an animal of some description that is more or less evolved at some point down the track when you are not even around to enjoy it? It doesn't really make a lot of sense, perhaps that is part of its appeal, I don't know. I just wanted to be clear, at least for my own sake, that Evolution is not a toy.

These questions can actually be answered best by the link in my signature. In short, however, it should be noted that evolution does not say that we are apes, nor that we descended from apes, merely that apes and humans descended from a common ancestor.

Likewise, and this is perhaps the most important part, the theory of evolution does not say, in any way shape or form, that we must give up our honor or belief. Certainly some individuals that believe in evolution have taken it in that direction (Dawkins, for one, though he would still say we have honor). But the theory itself, as a scientific theory does not say that.

I hope this clears some things up.

 

[com7fy8]

No one can transform their soul, in their own strength.

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God," (2 Corinthians 3:5)

And how can we know what is better? God is so better than we are; only He can know how it is really better for us to become.

Hebrews 12:9-11 > "Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful, nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."

So, how human fathers can correct someone is not as good as how our Father can correct us. So, it is desirable to seek God to correct us for our own good.

Even though it does say correction is "painful", it also says, here, how we need to be subject to our Father, in order to get this needed correction. So, we need to actively seek You, Father of spirits, for Your correction, so we can become "holy and without blame before" You "in love" (Ephesians 1:4).

And, of course, evolution of atoms and molecules is not going to do this. These are physical only. Physical DNA can't change our hearts which are spiritual; only God is able to correct us so we become truly loving. And this is in sharing with Him > "But He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) So, only in union with God can we become holy and loving like Him >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

"My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)

Only Jesus forming in us can make us "sweet-smelling" to God He in us can share His very own with us making us fragrantly pleasing to our Father

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

So, our becoming stronger needs to be about being strongly pleasing to our Father, in His love making us gentle and humble and sweetly quiet in His love He is easily able to cure us in His love, like this

"My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (in 2 Corinthians 12:9)

So, only stopping certain wrong beliefs is not enough. Conforming to a church's beliefs and practices does not make us deeply pleasing to our Father in His love's "incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit". So, it is not enough only to attack the wrong things! We need how You change us, and not only change our beliefs.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your reply inspired something in me, thankyou.

Always happy to help a fellow traveler along their way. If you learn just the basic life sciences and genetics the Darwinian arguments crumble like a house of cards. Just don't let them lead you down a dead end topic. You will always get mugged.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Hi Gottservant, I'll go ahead and bite even though it seems (to me) to be a little underhanded for you to assume that anyone that disagrees with you is already lost to the Devil. In a post about not being proud that seems a little odd to me. But here goes.



Aside from the pride issue mentioned above, I find it rather interesting that you grant the Devil so much power in this matter. By believing in evolution, you automatically are forever ensnared by the Devil and there is no hope for you? This seems rather final to me. While there certainly are traditions that state that some are doomed to hell from the very beginning (indeed the careful observer will notice that I am from a Calvinist tradition) I am curious if this is what you mean. Are you truly saying that an individual who believes in evolution already has the Devil's grips on them to such an extent that no matter what change of heart they may have they will be doomed to hell?

Beyond that I wanted to clarify a few points. Evolution does not and has never claimed that by my own power I become stronger. That's not the point. It's actually quite the opposite really. Evolution states basically two things:

1. Those individuals in a species that are not well adapted (i.e. those animals that are weak) die out. They don't get stronger by some sort of mental fortitude. No one is claiming that an Aardvark with a short tongue can somehow will itself to have a longer tongue in order to reach ants that have scurried into logs. No. Rather, that aardvark might starve for having the weakness of a short tongue.

2. Animals that are fortunate enough to have attributes that are useful will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes to their children. So, if our aardvark had been born with a long tongue, he would be more likely to not starve when the ants scurry into the log. He would, by not starving, be much more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on the genes of long-tonguedness. Either way, the aardvark is not achieving a long tongue by any effort of his own. It's not like one day he has a short tongue and pridefully thinks that he would be a better animal if he had a long one and through effort of his own grew his tongue.

Though it also should be noted that even if this was how it worked, it would hardly be a bad thing. We do (and should) make decisions all the time regarding the betterment of ourselves. We try to improve our lifestyle, we do healthy habits. I for one am an avid runner. I do it to improve my body. As someone that comes from a family with bad hearts and cholesterol, I run because running has a physical change on my body. It makes my heart stronger and removes bad things from my body. Is it prideful for me to have the audacity to exercise in order to make myself healthy?

Of course, this improvement on my body doesn't change my genes, my daughter still suffers from the same family history of weak hearts and cholesterol. But you seem to be thinking that evolution, a theory that you don't agree with, states that through my effort I could make an improvement to my genes and pass better genes onto my daughter. Clearly, this is a bit unfair because you don't agree with the theory, but why do you label that as pride? If hypothetically, I could improve my genes by exercising regularly and that would make my daughter more likely to be born healthy, wouldn't I have the moral obligation to do that? Far from being pride, wouldn't that be what every ethical father would do?

Of course, it's a moot point because that's not how evolution works anyway, but it is interesting that even if the theory did say what you thought it said it still wouldn't, in my opinion, be prideful because it wouldn't be about selfishly improving yourself, but rather about unselfishly giving of yourself to improve the life of your offspring. Sounds pretty nice to me actually.



These questions can actually be answered best by the link in my signature. In short, however, it should be noted that evolution does not say that we are apes, nor that we descended from apes, merely that apes and humans descended from a common ancestor.

Likewise, and this is perhaps the most important part, the theory of evolution does not say, in any way shape or form, that we must give up our honor or belief. Certainly some individuals that believe in evolution have taken it in that direction (Dawkins, for one, though he would still say we have honor). But the theory itself, as a scientific theory does not say that.

I hope this clears some things up.

You said it as soon as you said "pass on genes to my daughter", as if you have the strength to do it, whereas the truth is unless you convert your soul you will pass on nothing, or if you do, it will be failing

for if you do not believe yourself to be cared for, how can you care?

so everything you say turns out to be a fiction, which is precisely the problem

 

[Gottservant]

[...]
"My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (in 2 Corinthians 12:9)
[...]

Thankyou.

I'm not sure you addressed the notion of "snare" though.

That is fundamentally what this is about.

 

[Gottservant]

Always happy to help a fellow traveler along their way. If you learn just the basic life sciences and genetics the Darwinian arguments crumble like a house of cards. Just don't let them lead you down a dead end topic. You will always get mugged.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Getting mugged by conceptually caged thugs, is a bit of a problem, but I am starting to see that it is a spiritual battle to keep supply lines open and reinforcements coming, in order that the faith move ahead.

Things will be different once the gospel is over the whole earth, then what evolves will have to make a world of difference before the debate can even start and they are not likely to do that without at least being practical.

Practical people, make even mistakes look practical. (selah)

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

You said it as soon as you said "pass on genes to my daughter", as if you have the strength to do it, whereas the truth is unless you convert your soul you will pass on nothing, or if you do, it will be failing

for if you do not believe yourself to be cared for, how can you care?

so everything you say turns out to be a fiction, which is precisely the problem

Ummm... what?

That was the point, me passing on my genes to my daughter isn't done through my own strength. Did you continue reading after that paragraph?

 

[mark kennedy]

Getting mugged by conceptually caged thugs, is a bit of a problem, but I am starting to see that it is a spiritual battle to keep supply lines open and reinforcements coming, in order that the faith move ahead.

Things will be different once the gospel is over the whole earth, then what evolves will have to make a world of difference before the debate can even start and they are not likely to do that without at least being practical.

Practical people, make even mistakes look practical. (selah)

I suppose your right and the truth is Darwinism will pass just like so many 'isms' that came before it. Creation/evolution was part of the Culture Wars that involved abortion, gay activism and teaching creationism in the public schools. The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, abortion on demand is pretty much a stalemate. The Dover case involving Intelligent Design in text books determined that teaching ID was religious, and that ended the controversy in the public schools. Bottom line, the Culture Wars are over.

I don't know if you noticed but the debates in here have simmered down considerably. Most Christians were just not worried about it but the evolutionist crowd had been worked up into a frenzy. That's pretty much over now so anyone interested in discussing Creation as doctrine and a Biblical exegesis they won't be bothering us in here much.

My thing has been Christian apologetics, I regard Creationism as an evidential apologetics argument. If the subject matter interests you I have accumulated a ton of notes, I was especially interested in Genetics and human brain evolution. Geology and cosmology doesn't interest me much, if your interested in how the life sciences relate to the doctrine of creation just let me know. Before I finally drop the topic I think I'm going to run the gauntlet one more time in the common forum. I'll probably post a link in here when I get started in a week or two.

The culture wars are over and it looks the whole evolution/creation controversy is fading away. Creationism is going up, atheistic materialism is remaining static and it appears Theistic Evolution is on the decline.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

It's been a fascinating subject, it's not easy for me to move on but I have other things that demand my attention. If you would like to take an in depth look at the Theistic Evolutionist side of things, this is by far the best effort I have ever seen them make.

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.​

Biologos

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Ummm... what?

That was the point, me passing on my genes to my daughter isn't done through my own strength. Did you continue reading after that paragraph?

I read what you wrote about 1.5 times, now 2.1

You went on to say that "that's not how evolution works" which only further compounds the problem, I didn't stress this because I was able to make a salient point without it, but since you insist, the problem is that even if Evolution "worked" as a theory (which it doesn't) it would run into this exact problem of supposing that because we do something, we are "entitled" to a result that is based on our actions, for which there is no turning to God, no repentance and no redemption. I don't know why you think this is "not your strength" as if "God is doing the exercise" because unless you think I am stupid that is clearly not what you are saying, or were. Now, I can help you align what you believe the truth to be toward God, but not while you adamantly insist that the heritability of faith truth belief or any number of things associated with life is backwardsly compatible with ape-like ancestors (whatever difference pointing to a chokepoint makes) mutating out of form towards something infinitely more complex than any accident can account for, as if God doesn't exist and you certainly haven't stated what the interaction of God is with that mess you describe as your work in progress self

the fact is the soul has its own law, that does not interact stably with any kind of concept of Evolution, no matter how you want to put it, for the simple fact that only greater antagonism satisfies the proud foundation that it lays for the flesh it ensnares, that is what I am warning you against

 

[gluadys]

You said it as soon as you said "pass on genes to my daughter", as if you have the strength to do it, whereas the truth is unless you convert your soul you will pass on nothing, or if you do, it will be failing

for if you do not believe yourself to be cared for, how can you care?

so everything you say turns out to be a fiction, which is precisely the problem

How does one become a parent without passing their genes to their son or daughter?

 

[Gottservant]

How does one become a parent without passing their genes to their son or daughter?

God intervenes as parent, where otherwise there would be only sinner (and devolution).

 

[gluadys]

God intervenes as parent, where otherwise there would be only sinner (and devolution).

That answer is irrelevant to this question.
Not disputing what you said, but it is like answering the question "What colour is it?" with the word "Wet".

Do you think it is possible to become a parent without passing your DNA to your child?

 

[Gottservant]

That answer is irrelevant to this question.
Not disputing what you said, but it is like answering the question "What colour is it?" with the word "Wet".

Do you think it is possible to become a parent without passing your DNA to your child?

Without God, it is not possible to pass anything on to your child.

The answer is "Wet".

I am assuming that you realize that without DNA, there is no child.

 

[gluadys]

Without God, it is not possible to pass anything on to your child.

The answer is "Wet".

I am assuming that you realize that without DNA, there is no child.

Indeed, that is my point, that without DNA there is no child. So it has to be passed on. Can it be passed on without God's help?

As we are in a Christian-only forum, I don't think anyone here takes issue with the idea that without God there would also be no child. So sure, DNA is passed from parent to child, with God's help. But it is passed on.

So why the objection when BeforeTheFoundation said the same thing?

 

[Gottservant]

Because it is not passed on by you, it is passed on through you.

This might not seem like a big problem, but it is in fact the problem: the problem of agency.

If I say I am imparting my heritance on to my children, I am saying "I am their child (saith the Devil)".
If I say my children are receiving my inheritance with God through God, I am saying "I am their father (saith the Lord)".

One divorces the family, the other does not.
No man divorces his family, before it is conceived. (selah)

 

[CryOfALion]

The snare of evolution is that it provides a genesis story for someone who does not believe in any hand outside of this universe forming and driving creation. It is a phenomenal piece of philosophy and origin material, but it is not the unique solution to the problem of universal genesis. It is merely a possible solution. It is attractive because for the most part it is logical, and has the luxury of the backing of academia (which is lauded as truth by both believers and nonbelievers.) Here is where we get the gray area of believers of a deity adapting belief around what is purported to be scientifically accurate. In this case, religious texts and documents earn the title of "figurative," and are replaced by the "truth" of science as literal.

That paints a very broadly stroked problem for me. Understandably, there are literary devices like metaphor and allusion used in holy books often, but it becomes a denominational problem when it goes beyond literary devices, and focuses on the authenticity of authors, details, and the possibilities of events described in respective holy books. (This irony, of course, is compounded when one believes in the awesomeness of one's respective god, yet denies the [marginally] unbelievable events in the Holy books, whilst understanding such an event is child's play to their respective god.) How can you believe a god can, for example, create creatures, planets, stars, and universes, but not believe He can give power to His creation to do things that seem impossible (like make a sea part, heal the sick, or populate the world with 2-8 people.)

A problem with evolution for theists, especially Abraham religions, is that it entices one to chip away at one's own faith (and the possibilities thereof) in place of the "truth" of science. You may as well entertain all religious stories of origin.