Theistic Evolution and death

[Everybodyknows]

According to death denying YECers, how did they live before that? Were all animals solar powered?

-Papias

Oh stop it, you're just giving them ideas!

 

[Papias]

Can I press you to share you views in a little more detail in this regard. What does man's physical death mean pre-fall?

Sure.
Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam. Adam rebelled against God, having the mental ability to recognize and think about God and the mental ability & freewill to reject God's command. That act was the fall. As a result of that fall, Adam's soul became vulnerable to spiritual death - and hence needed Jesus as a savior to grant eternal life of the soul in heaven.

The apes before Adam died, and without a soul, they just died. If we call Adam the first human, then he's also the first with a soul. Hence, there were no "humans" before the Adam, and hence no humans before the fall - though the apes just before Adam were very, very much like Adam physically, and like Adam, all experienced physical death, with their bodies rotting like any other animal.

All animals - human or not - experience physical death and their bodies decompose. Humans are the only ones with souls, and our souls can live on forever in Heaven, but only if we are saved. That's what Gen 2:17 is talking about. Make sense?

The Pope's statements are also consistent with this approach.

Seems to include the tree of life in what could be eaten. So are you saying they were commanded to not eat from either tree?

No, they were only forbidden from eating from the tree of knowledge (a metaphor for thinking for oneself independent from God). You had said that they were told to eat from the tree of life, which is not the case - it was permissible, but not commanded, according to Genesis.

Also I view continued eating from the tree of life as sustaining them in eternal life and once they stopped eating from it they eventually die (the tree being symbolic of their connection with God). Rather than only needing to eat of it once to gain permanent immortality.

That's unscriptural based on Genesis 3:22, which says that eating from the tree of life once grants permanent immortality (which is why I quoted it earlier). The tree can be symbolic of the connection to God regardless of granting physical immortality or not.

You are saying that the "tree of life" is no different from any other regular tree in the garden - of course you have to keep eating food or you'll die.

That's also inconsistent with the YEC whole "no death" thing. Where all the animals eating from the tree of life too? If so, why doesn't it say so? If not, then why would humans need to and not other animals? It makes no sense - and is unscriptural anyway, since no where in Genesis does it say that Adam ate from the tree of life, even once.

Life could be understood experientialy as awareness of one's own existence, in contrast to non living things (e.g. Rocks). Death could be understood as ones awareness ceasing to exist and passing from living to non living. We have the capacity to understand many things which we have never witnessed or experienced.

Life could be understood experientialy as awareness of one's own existence, in contrast to non living things (e.g. Rocks).

How would Adam know whether or not rocks are self-aware?

Death could be understood as ones awareness ceasing to exist and passing from living to non living.

What is "non-living"? Some things can do things other things can't do - for instance, Eve can't pee standing up. Some things can talk (Eve), some can't (rocks). What's "dead" mean?

In Christ - Papias

 

[Papias]

If death was a good and beneficial ingredient wouldn't it contradict the way death is nearly always the consequence of some evil throughout the bible?

Are we reading the same Bible? Death is very often done by God. In fact, anyone counting shows that God kills many, many times as many people as Satan kills in the Bibles, so if physical death were evil, it would seem that God would the the source of an awful lot of evil. Many of these are justified in the sense that the person did something wrong, but many of them are for things that we know don't really deserve death (like lying or being an egyptian soldier whom God drowned), and many others are innocent (the thousands of children in Egypt, David's son, flood victims, the two guys holding the ark, Job's whole family, and so on).

For example Paul describes it in Romans 8:19-20 :

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

This passage describes death and pain as frustrating, something needing to be liberated from, and bondage. Also Paul names death the enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26 :

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Yes, there are two logical options here.

The first option - Paul is talking about spiritual death, as per the Genesis story (the fate of souls in the spiritual realm). They make no sense otherwise. As shown earlier, being able to eat, grow, form a baby in the womb, and so much more requires physical death.

In fact, a moment's thought shows that death=children. It's a joyful part of life to be a child, to see children, and to witness the miracle of birth. Life on earth shows that children are a major part of life. All animals and plants have reproductive systems, often taking up much of their bodies. Most of our popular songs are love songs about new couples. And so on. Yet, if there were no death, there could be no children in a system that works. And then there would be no reason for sex to exist. No death, no sex, no children. To work, if there are children, there must be death - it's either both or neither, and for me, I greatly prefer to have both instead of neither.

The creation clearly isn't "groaning" under the weight of physical death and children. It's working, while recycling all nutrients from life to life. It *is* however, groaning under spiritual death, with most souls being lost as Jesus said that most souls are lost, and only a few saved.

The other option is that Paul is actually talking about physical death, and he is just completely clueless about reality, and is just plain wrong. As a Christian, my faith prevents me from seriously considering that option, so I'm back to option 1, which makes plenty of sense and is scriptural anyway.

Furthermore in Revelation we are led to see death as something to be rid of, not something God created:

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

How do you reconcile these things?

Yes, here too this is clearly about spiritual death. After all, in addition to the points made above, getting rid of spiritual death would mean that all of us can be with our loved ones forever in Heaven, wiping away every tear.

So, it's Option 1 again, not option 2.

Make sense?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Are we reading the same Bible?

Dunno, is yours laced with gold and diamonds?

In fact, anyone counting shows that God kills many, many times as many people as Satan kills in the Bibles, so if physical death were evil, it would seem that God would the the source of an awful lot of evil. Many of these are justified in the sense that the person did something wrong, but many of them are for things that we know don't really deserve death (like lying or being an egyptian soldier whom God drowned), and many others are innocent (the thousands of children in Egypt, David's son, flood victims, the two guys holding the ark, Job's whole family, and so on).

So rather than seeing death as a consequence of evil you see death as a necessary, good and perfect part of creation. Do you think there will be death in heaven? Furthermore, do you see pain as necessary and perfect part of creation? Will there be pain in heaven?

The creation clearly isn't "groaning" under the weight of physical death and children. It's working, while recycling all nutrients from life to life. It *is* however, groaning under spiritual death, with most souls being lost as Jesus said that most souls are lost, and only a few saved.

In this verse I would have thought "creation" implies animals and all plant life; anything that can die. Animals and plant life do not have souls but you are saying the "creation" only applies to mankind?

For [Mankind] waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For [Mankind] was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice

I would have thought mankind was subjected to frustration by its own choice (Adams choice) and the rest of creation was subjected to frustration not by its own choice.

 

[Open Heart]

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

There never was a deathless creation. Sin brought spiritual death into the world. But physical death existed ever since physical life existed.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Sure.
Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam. Adam rebelled against God, having the mental ability to recognize and think about God and the mental ability & freewill to reject God's command. That act was the fall. As a result of that fall, Adam's soul became vulnerable to spiritual death - and hence needed Jesus as a savior to grant eternal life of the soul in heaven.

The apes before Adam died, and without a soul, they just died. If we call Adam the first human, then he's also the first with a soul. Hence, there were no "humans" before the Adam, and hence no humans before the fall - though the apes just before Adam were very, very much like Adam physically, and like Adam, all experienced physical death, with their bodies rotting like any other animal.

All animals - human or not - experience physical death and their bodies decompose. Humans are the only ones with souls, and our souls can live on forever in Heaven, but only if we are saved. That's what Gen 2:17 is talking about. Make sense?

The Pope's statements are also consistent with this approach.

So what does this world look like, between the time Adam received his soul and the fall? Let's imagine Adam had made better choices and not sinned. So we have a world where people still die. Presumably viruses and bacteria still exist (they are part of the evolutionary process after all) so there is still sickness. Also I imagine one could still be born with a generic disorder, as we only received a soul not a perfect body. Would it be any less devastating to loose a child to disease, or a lion, or shark or any other misfortune? How different would the world be what it is now? I guess there would be no crime or war. Also we would be sure that everyone who died would be saved. But would the death of a loved one who we know is saved be any less devastating than it is in this world?

I'm struggling to grasp that God made a world where there is pain, suffering, sickness and sorrow. Was this the best possible world God could make?

What is "non-living"? Some things can do things other things can't do - for instance, Eve can't pee standing up. Some things can talk (Eve), some can't (rocks). What's "dead" mean?

In Christ - Papias

Eve sure can pee standing up, but it's definitely not recommended

 

[Everybodyknows]

There never was a deathless creation. Sin brought spiritual death into the world. But physical death existed ever since physical life existed.

Thanks. What is your view of man in particular? How do you view physical/spiritual death before and after the fall?

 

[Open Heart]

Thanks. What is your view of man in particular? How do you view physical/spiritual death before and after the fall?

I believe that as primates evolved, that the dividing line with modern man was the development of moral sentience, aka "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Death existed before and after. However, once man knew right from wrong, he became morally responsible. That means there were spiritual consequences for his actions, such as spiritual death.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I believe that as primates evolved, that the dividing line with modern man was the development of moral sentience, aka "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Death existed before and after. However, once man knew right from wrong, he became morally responsible. That means there were spiritual consequences for his actions, such as spiritual death.

Do you believe in an act of disobedience or sin that separated man from God (was the fall an actual event)? Is the development of moral sentience an inevitable outcome of the course of evolution? I like your approach, I have had similar thoughts myself.

 

[Papias]

Dunno, is yours laced with gold and diamonds?

Nope - mine is platinum with rubies.

So rather than seeing death as a consequence of evil you see death as a necessary, good and perfect part of creation. Do you think there will be death in heaven? Furthermore, do you see pain as necessary and perfect part of creation? Will there be pain in heaven?

The distinction between physical and spiritual is centrally important to this. In the physical world, some death is the consequence of evil, but a lot of it is necessary and good (hence the mantisplosion, kids, etc. - don't you agree that our world is not possible without death?). Some pain is needed - like the pain you feel to remove your hand from a hot stove, due to the physical fragility of our physical bodies. Some pain is evil - such that of war.

In heaven, there need not be death, because it's not physical - we won't need to kill every time we eat, etc. There will be no new children in heaven, and no marriage, etc. Heaven is not the physical world.

In this verse I would have thought "creation" implies animals and all plant life; anything that can die. Animals and plant life do not have souls but you are saying the "creation" only applies to mankind?

For [Mankind] waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For [Mankind] was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice

I would have thought mankind was subjected to frustration by its own choice (Adams choice) and the rest of creation was subjected to frustration not by its own choice.

I think that the "mankind" approach here works. You aren't advocating option #2, from earlier, right?

So what does this world look like, between the time Adam received his soul and the fall? Let's imagine Adam had made better choices and not sinned. So we have a world where people still die. Presumably viruses and bacteria still exist (they are part of the evolutionary process after all) so there is still sickness. Also I imagine one could still be born with a generic disorder, as we only received a soul not a perfect body. Would it be any less devastating to loose a child to disease, or a lion, or shark or any other misfortune? How different would the world be what it is now? I guess there would be no crime or war. Also we would be sure that everyone who died would be saved.

But that's very different. An awful lot of suffering is caused by crime and war. We are very sad when someone dies, because we can't know for sure if they are really saved - or even if we really saved.

I visited nuns in a convent once. One sister there had just died. There was no grief. They talked about her in glowing, happy terms. Everyone knew that they's see her again.

Compare that to this:
Franklin Graham - This week pop icon George Michael passed... | Facebook

I'm struggling to grasp that God made a world where there is pain, suffering, sickness and sorrow. Was this the best possible world God could make?

Remember that a lot of this pain and suffering would not exist. Secondly, a lot of pain is necessary due to our fragile, physical bodies. You feel pain when you put your hand in a fire, and quickly pull it back. Without the pain, you'd leave it in there longer, and might not have a hand. Pain often protects our bodies. Hunger pains keep us alive because they get us to eat. The same for thirst, cold, etc. Even the pain of an injury keeps us from hurting ourselves (pain keeps you from trying to walk on a broken foot).

Was this the best possible world God could make?

I can't know God's mind. It seems to me that this is not at all the best possible world.

Just a few things come to mind instantly - why not make everything, including animals, solar powered? Or better yet, nuclear? Then you'd be born with a tiny, internal pellet of fuel, and never have to eat, never feel hungry, never die of drowning (no need for air), etc. No need to desperately look for a job to get money to buy food.

Why not make idolatry physically or mentally painful? - no more idolaters.

Why make us need to keep a narrow temperature range? Why not make us equally comfortable in temperatures ranging from the inside of the Sun to the arctic? Why not have eyes that can see wavelengths from radar to gamma rays? That would be cool and useful. Why not have nuclear pellets grow naturally on trees to power some kind of flight? I'd like to fly. Radiation sickeness? Just make us not get it.

How about if we could instantly see any movie we want, at will? Or better yet, God could give us internal downloads of movies infinitely better than anything we humans have made. Same for music. Instead of just hearing (music) and sight (movies), why not also have 427,420,888,003,852 other senses to enjoy similar entertainment, which we could use all of them at the same time?

Why not instant, telepathic communication with anyone around the globe, and with God, at will? An omnipotent God could make all of this happen, right?

I could go on all day.

In contrast to how I'd make us if I were starting from scratch, we instead look exactly like yet another type of ape, more similar even to mice than to what I'd make us capable of.

Why didn't God do this? I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.

In Jesus' name - Papias

 

[Open Heart]

Do you believe in an act of disobedience or sin that separated man from God (was the fall an actual event)? Is the development of moral sentience an inevitable outcome of the course of evolution? I like your approach, I have had similar thoughts myself.

Yes, there would have had to have been an act of disobedience, a moment where the first person to know right from wrong sinned and felt guilt, maybe even tried to hide what they did -- that would have been what we call "The Fall." Before that moment, mankind, or at least our immediate predecessors, were innocent, as animals are innocent. After that, we were responsible for our flawed behavior. Yes, moral sentience was the inevitable course of evolution. I think that the whole direction of evolution, even of the universe as a whole from the moment of the big bang, was to create morally sentient beings.

Make no mistake, chimpanzees know what justice is. They protest loudly if they are treated unjustly. But they have no compunction about treating one another unjustly, nor do they care one wit if they see another chimp protesting the injustice done to him. There is no sense of guilt, and no sense of moral obligation to help. They are still animals in a state of innocence.

Mankind has taken a step outside of that. Our bodies remain animals, but our souls (whatever a soul is) are something more. We are becoming.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

don't you agree that our world is not possible without death?

I admit that I do not understand how the world would work if there were no death as I do not understand how heaven will work. Because heaven will not include death (spiritual or physical) I would have thought the universe would have operated in the same way from the very beginning. However if the devil was influencing creation from very early on as a fallen being then perhaps everything we take as normal today, is actually abnormal. Perhaps normal would be a universe with no physical death where everything is self-sustainable.

In heaven, there need not be death, because it's not physical - we won't need to kill every time we eat, etc. There will be no new children in heaven, and no marriage, etc. Heaven is not the physical world.

How do you know heaven won't be physical? 1 Corinthians 15:35-58 describes the change. It seems that Jesus is the first one raised and that we will be raised as Jesus was raised. Jesus is both a spirit, and a body. He ate food. Thomas touched him etc. So the physical side of life seems to still be present even if there is some kind of spiritual change that affects the physicality.

I think that the "mankind" approach here works. You aren't advocating option #2, from earlier, right?

I'm not necessarily advocating the view in the sense that I want others to believe it, but I am advocating it in the sense that I think, at present, that it is a more plausible view than a world where God intentionally created death and pain as a part of this universe

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Nope - mine is platinum with rubies.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Yes, there would have had to have been an act of disobedience, a moment where the first person to know right from wrong sinned and felt guilt, maybe even tried to hide what they did -- that would have been what we call "The Fall." Before that moment, mankind, or at least our immediate predecessors, were innocent, as animals are innocent. After that, we were responsible for our flawed behavior. Yes, moral sentience was the inevitable course of evolution. I think that the whole direction of evolution, even of the universe as a whole from the moment of the big bang, was to create morally sentient beings.

Was sin inevitable? I'm thinking in in the sense of our non-morally sentient ancestors having the capacity for bad behavior (e.g. Selfishness violence, cruelty). Did Adam make the choice to commit evil our was he just continuing in the inherited behaviour of the primate ancestors and he merely became aware that some of his behaviors were good and others bad?

Make no mistake, chimpanzees know what justice is. They protest loudly if they are treated unjustly. But they have no compunction about treating one another unjustly, nor do they care one wit if they see another chimp protesting the injustice done to him. There is no sense of guilt, and no sense of moral obligation to help. They are still animals in a state of innocence.

Mankind has taken a step outside of that. Our bodies remain animals, but our souls (whatever a soul is) are something more. We are becoming.

I've read some stuff on primate behavioral research that suggests otherwise. Have a look at this (Note the end where he talks about chimps). I've mentioned before that there doesn't seem to be such a clear divide between higher order primate and human in the behavioral or moral sense.

 

[Open Heart]

Did Adam make the choice to commit evil our was he just continuing in the inherited behaviour of the primate ancestors and he merely became aware that some of his behaviors were good and others bad?

I couldn't say. Maybe it was a leap to deliberately choosing to violate his conscience. Maybe it was the small step of behaving instinctively, but then feeling guilty about it later.

 

[Open Heart]

I've read some stuff on primate behavioral research that suggests otherwise. Have a look at this (Note the end where he talks about chimps). I've mentioned before that there doesn't seem to be such a clear divide between higher order primate and human in the behavioral or moral sense.

I am unaware of this type of chimp behavior. Everything that I have seen or read indicates that chimps do not intervene if they see another chimp being treated unfairly. (Infanticide seems to be the exception to the rule.) Even your video doesn't back up your claim that the money with the grapes gives them to the cucumber monkey. They also treat each other unfairly, stealing from each other, having affairs, etc.

However, there are some surprising acts of kindness and empathy. Although chimps cannot swim, many have drowned trying to save others who have fallen into zoo moats. I am of the opinion that chimps are on the verge of a moral breakthrough. They seem to have basic sympathy, such as when a companion dies. They know what is just and unjust (even if they apply it only to themselves). I've often wondered what would happen if a "missionary" were sent to chimps who knew sign language or symbol language, and taught them basic rules morality.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I am unaware of this type of chimp behavior. Everything that I have seen or read indicates that chimps do not intervene if they see another chimp being treated unfairly. (Infanticide seems to be the exception to the rule.) Even your video doesn't back up your claim that the money with the grapes gives them to the cucumber monkey.

I have come across this somewhere before, but unfortunately that video was the only reference I could find now. I too would like a bit more proof than that. I think a lot of humans wouldn't reject unfair reward if they were on the beneficial side.

They also treat each other unfairly, stealing from each other, having affairs, etc.

Just like us?

However, there are some surprising acts of kindness and empathy. Although chimps cannot swim, many have drowned trying to save others who have fallen into zoo moats. I am of the opinion that chimps are on the verge of a moral breakthrough. They seem to have basic sympathy, such as when a companion dies. They know what is just and unjust (even if they apply it only to themselves). I've often wondered what would happen if a "missionary" were sent to chimps who knew sign language or symbol language, and taught them basic rules morality.

Yes I too was interested in this topic a while back. I've become of the opinion that higher order primates are a lot more like us than we give them credit for and I question how we define the concept of soul. Is the soul something that has evolved too? We seem to have a lot of behavioral inheritance, both good and bad from, our evolutionary ancestors. This is why I asked you if 'sin' is inevitable.

 

[Open Heart]

Yes I too was interested in this topic a while back. I've become of the opinion that higher order primates are a lot more like us than we give them credit for and I question how we define the concept of soul. Is the soul something that has evolved too? We seem to have a lot of behavioral inheritance, both good and bad from, our evolutionary ancestors. This is why I asked you if 'sin' is inevitable.

I think our minds work alike -- we seem to be on the same page. I think chimps in particular seem to be on the verge of making a significant step forward in their evolution -- they have started making spears, as well as doing things that, if we humans were doing them, can only be described as religious. We've known for a long time that they have a basic sense of justice. The other pillar of morality is empathy. IF as you say they have made progress with that, then they have developed a basic moral sense. Where there is morality, there is sin.

If another sentient being has arisen that has "fallen" and in need of salvation, obviously God would have his own unique plan for that species. How would present religions deal with this? My guess is that many will be profoundly threatened by the idea that we are not alone in our moral capacity, and simply deny that this is the case. Of course, this is all theoretical at this time. It's going to take more studies and analysis by greater minds than yours and mine.

Do you know your Myers Briggs Type? I'm just wondering who else besides me cares about the moral development of other primates...

 

[-57]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

I've noticed that when you incorporate Theo-Evoism into the bible, much of the bible has to be re-written to include concepts that are not in the bible.

For instance the whole new means as to how and why mankind has a sin nature has to be invented.

The concept of sin and death spreading because of one man has to be changed from one man to a population.

The linage of Jesus Christ presented in the gospels has to be changed...starting as fact and ending as fiction.

Pauls direction to the women in Timothy would be based upon a myth rather than a literal Genesis.

Adam would not be the 7th from Enoch....because there would be no Adam.

 

[-57]

I think our minds work alike -- we seem to be on the same page. I think chimps in particular seem to be on the verge of making a significant step forward in their evolution -- they have started making spears, as well as doing things that, if we humans were doing them, can only be described as religious. We've known for a long time that they have a basic sense of justice. The other pillar of morality is empathy. IF as you say they have made progress with that, then they have developed a basic moral sense. Where there is morality, there is sin.

If another sentient being has arisen that has "fallen" and in need of salvation, obviously God would have his own unique plan for that species. How would present religions deal with this? My guess is that many will be profoundly threatened by the idea that we are not alone in our moral capacity, and simply deny that this is the case. Of course, this is all theoretical at this time. It's going to take more studies and analysis by greater minds than yours and mine.

Do you know your Myers Briggs Type? I'm just wondering who else besides me cares about the moral development of other primates...

That may sound good...but...it's not biblical. You can't point to a chapter and verse to support your thoughts.