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!
Upvote
0
According to death denying YECers, how did they live before that? Were all animals solar powered?
-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?
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?
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.
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).
Death could be understood as ones awareness ceasing to exist and passing from living to non living.
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?
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.
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?
Are we reading the same Bible?
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).
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.
There never was a deathless creation. Sin brought spiritual death into the world. But physical death existed ever since physical life existed.How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?
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?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.
Eve sure can pee standing up, but it's definitely not recommendedWhat 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
Thanks. What is your view of man in particular? How do you view physical/spiritual death before and after the fall?There never was a deathless creation. Sin brought spiritual death into the world. But physical death existed ever since physical life existed.
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.Thanks. What is your view of man in particular? How do you view physical/spiritual death before and after the fall?
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.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.
Dunno, is yours laced with gold and diamonds?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Was this the best possible world God could make?
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.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.
don't you agree that our world is not possible without death?
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.
I think that the "mankind" approach here works. You aren't advocating option #2, from earlier, right?
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?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.
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.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 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.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 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.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 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.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.
Just like us?They also treat each other unfairly, stealing from each other, having affairs, etc.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
That may sound good...but...it's not biblical. You can't point to a chapter and verse to support your thoughts.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...