Theistic Evolution and the Fall

[UpperEschelon]

I'm having a really hard time following your reasoning. WHY do you think woman being made from man's rib cannot be symbolic, but eating fruit from a tree that grants everlasting life must be?

Because there is no other possible way to explain the creation of woman, and how she was "derived" from man. It may have not happened exactly as in the text (yes it could be allegorical) but woman was nevertheless derived from man, which is the ultimate truth being portrayed. Like I said, you do not interpret symbolism on the basis of denying the truth being portrayed, you cannot deny the truth that is revealed, be it by literal/allegorical means.

Evolution will never explain this. God isn't allowed to be God? Is He forced to remain in the confines of natural laws and evolutionary processes whenever He desires to create something? Bogus

 

[UpperEschelon]

In the first place I wouldn't be so certain that other species of animals don't have some capacity of spiritual awareness. I am not sure when the teaching that only humans have souls originated, but it was not the perception of the church only a few hundred years ago.

Animals do not have souls. I guess it is a good thing that I spend my leisure time actually studying scripture rather than burying myself under science books...?

What the church taught (following Aquinas who was following Aristotle) was that all living things have souls, but each has a soul appropriate to its organic form. Plants have vegetative souls; animals (as the very word suggests) have vital souls that possess all the capacities of vegetative souls and also the addition of animation. ('anima' = 'soul'/'life' in Latin i.e. that which animates a body). What distinguishes humanity is that it has a rational soul, which again has all the capacities of vegetative and animal souls with the addition of rational awareness (or image of God).

Humanity being made in the image of God means that humans and only humans were made eternal, and it is the soul which defines the eternal nature of man.

Of course these ideas were developed without the input of evolutionary thinking, but one can see how they can be developed into an evolution of spiritual capacity which would mean near relatives among animal species might not be any more distant from humanity spiritually than physically. Maybe we can't draw a hard "X has a soul but Y doesn't" distinction in a population on the verge of becoming human.

Yes, let us now permeate every single aspect with the finger prints of evolution, you have fun with that.

Secondly, to see God as creator, even in a world of evolution, is to see God actively creating. Whether it is vegetative, animal or rational soul, God participates in creating the capacity needed by the organism in its relationship to its creator.

Man is the only being on earth capable of a relationship with the creator, I won't bother to elaborate, I didn't think there would even be a reason to.

I'll be sure to stay far away from any and all lines of TE thinking.

 

[shernren]

Animals do not have souls. I guess it is a good thing that I spend my leisure time actually studying scripture rather than burying myself under science books...?

Ooh, studying the Bible! I love doing that too!

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21, ESV
​

 

[Assyrian]

Because there is no other possible way to explain the creation of woman, and how she was "derived" from man. It may have not happened exactly as in the text (yes it could be allegorical) but woman was nevertheless derived from man, which is the ultimate truth being portrayed. Like I said, you do not interpret symbolism on the basis of denying the truth being portrayed, you cannot deny the truth that is revealed, be it by literal/allegorical means.

Evolution will never explain this. God isn't allowed to be God? Is He forced to remain in the confines of natural laws and evolutionary processes whenever He desires to create something? Bogus

So your problem with the allegorical interpretation is that you take the passage literally

Animals do not have souls. I guess it is a good thing that I spend my leisure time actually studying scripture rather than burying myself under science books...?

Humanity being made in the image of God means that humans and only humans were made eternal, and it is the soul which defines the eternal nature of man.

Oh good, having spent your leisure time studying scripture rather than science, perhaps you can tell me where the bible says animals don't have souls, or that the soul defines the eternal nature of man

I think the part of scripture study you may be missing is shown by the Bereans
Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Examining the scripture daily in your spare time... to see if these things really are so, or just tradition.

 

[gluadys]

Animals do not have souls. I guess it is a good thing that I spend my leisure time actually studying scripture rather than burying myself under science books...?

The very word "animal" derives from the word "soul" (Latin: anima=soul)

What is soul anyway?

Humanity being made in the image of God means that humans and only humans were made eternal, and it is the soul which defines the eternal nature of man.

I don't know how one derives any of this from scripture. From Plato, yes. Scripture--debatable. But then Plato would also say that every animal, even every inanimate thing, has an eternal nature (see his doctrine of "forms"). Thomas Aquinas said the soul is the form of human beings.

Yes, let us now permeate every single aspect with the finger prints of evolution, you have fun with that.

I prefer it to permeating every single aspect with the finger prints of Platonic dualism.

Man is the only being on earth capable of a relationship with the creator, I won't bother to elaborate, I didn't think there would even be a reason to.

Seems to me that anything a creator creates has a relationship to the creator. When the OT was translated into Greek the Greek term they used for 'bara' (Hebrew=create) was 'poema' which in Greek means to make. It is also, of course the source of our English word 'poem'. The relation of God to any and all his work is, etymologically, that of a poet to his poem, of an artist to his art.

Scripture also tells us of how the animals of the wilderness look to God to provide for them, and of how God meets their needs. Sounds like a relationship to me.

And what of all the scriptural passages that bids the various aspects of creaton to praise their Maker?

One of my favorites is in Revelation 5 where John sees the throne of God surrounded by two great choirs singing antiphonally. One is the heavenly choir of all the angels; the other is the earthly choir of every creature. Not a human choir only, but a choir of every creature in creation.