Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm saying that we have to choose between believing in Creation (if we want the fall and atonement to be meaningful concepts)
Ah baloney
There is no "Special Creation" in scripture for man.
Man was re-made into God's Image and brought to Spiritual Life.
1) I do not use the phrase "special creation"
2) shaped from clay is not being "re-made"
3) only a being who was at some point perfect can be restored by atoning sacrifice of Christ
4) a being who evolved from apes was never perfect and so cannot by definition be restored to such - perfection becomes something to evolve into, not something to be restored back into
That is not what Eden/the-Fall/Atonement is about though. In Eden it is the lack of knowledge of good and evil which is the ideal, the loss of which is the fall, and for which Christ's death is the restoring atonement. It is based on the idea that we were made 'perfect' but lost it and need to regain it, whilst evolution says we evolved from animals rather than fell from a perfect state (and so perfection is something to be achieved not regained...and so does not need an atoning sacrifice of Christ).
Sounds like a mantra that you need to repeat over and over again, to believe it.Yahweh the Creator created the world for man, to be inhabited by man, perfectly. No mistakes, nothing missing, nothing lacking.
Man messed up.
It has nothing to do with biological origins.
It's a Spiritual condition of communion with God that we are restored to.
We are not being turned into "Adams" and "Eves"
We are being restored into communion.
For the record...
I completely agree with you that in light of the evolution of species, including (or perhaps "especially") humans, no borderlining narcistic human-centric religion makes any sense.
By that, I mean, religions where humans are the center or even the entire point of "creation" / the universe.
Because what evolution tells us, is that no species was ever "meant" or "intended" to exist. We exist only due to past circumstances. You can call that "luck" if you will, but I don't agree with that. It's neither luck nore bad luck. It just is.
You can also turn it around... Think of the bazibillios of species that could have existed, but don't. Do they have "bad luck"? I don't see how that is a sensible position.
Consider yourself as an individual.
YOU are the result of a specific egg of your mother and a specific sperm cell of your dad.
When your parents had sex, your dad 'donated' MILLIONS of sperm cells. And that's just counting the time they had sex where you were conceived. I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't the first and only time that your dad [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Each time = millions of sperm cells. In total, BILLIONS.
Put this into perspective for a second....
Your conception was incredibly circumstantial. So circumtantial in fact, that the odds of YOU existing (a priori) were so ridiculously low, you'ld have more chance of winning the lotterly several times in a row.
Among those billions of other potential children they could have had, surely there were potential humans there smarter then Einstein, more talented with their pen then Shakespear, better at soccer then Eden Hazard (on a sidenote GO BELGIUM!!!!). So, do all those potential humans have "bad luck"?
You can take a step back and say the exact same thing on the species level.
BILLIONS, nay, TRILLIONS of potential species that could have existed, but never did.
If you could press a reset button, turning back time 3.8 billion years, and have "life" play out again on this planet.... Humans would not exist. They just wouldn't.
In light of this, I say that any religion that puts humans in the center, as being "the point" of the universe, is pretty much absurd.
The fact of the matter is that if our sun would explode tomorrow and obliterate the entire solar system - the universe as a whole would remain virtually exactly the same as before.
That's how insignificant and irrelevant we are on the cosmic scale.
While narcisistic religions would have you believe the exact opposite.
It makes no sense to me at all.
I don’t struggle with this issue as I believe that the stories in Genesis aren’t histories in any way . They’re a just-so story to illustrate that God made everything . Adam and Eve’s story is how everyone feels about being kicked out of the Garden ( the womb) now you're cold and hungry and vulnerable . And the older you get as a child ,the more you feel that way .It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.
The point is made by the snarky Centre for Unintelligent Design, which lists “The ease with which we can choke” as an example of “unintelligent design,” and by Wikipedia. On the “Argument for poor design“ page they include this under “Fatal flaws” in human anatomy:
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking...
...That having been said, the design of the human oral cavity looks more like a trade-off than a botch. As Evolution News has put it, “Trade-offs are compromises made to optimize the highest design goal.” They are not errors but necessary features of design in a material world.
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/oral-cavitys-supposedly-lousy-design-is-a-key-to-human-speech/
In the context of Theistic Evolution, the "previous condition" would be one in which early pre-historic humanity lived in some sort of Edenic harmony & communion with God... which idyllic state of obedience was broken by disobedience, incurring Divine Wrath upon humankind... Theistic Evolution would involve evolution according to Divine Will and intervention & influence... the "Fall" would be some sort of rebellion against that Will & intervention & influenceJesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?
I cannot see a way around this.
Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.
Note: Keep in mind that I hold to Theistic Evolution, not Creationism, so I do not have a pro-Creationist axe to grind in any way.
My understanding of TE suggests the logical possibility that prior to the Fall, mankind did not resist God's guidance of evolution on Earth... the Fall represents disobedience to God's ultimate Divine Authority over our actions on Earth... the "prior condition" was one of harmonious obedience to the "Divine Hand" in evolving human development & history... the "Fall" was rebellion against that intervening influence... not necessarily any incompatibilityThe idea is that Jesus brings back to the pre-fall at the very least (and perhaps then takes us on further, but it is still a restoration of what is claimed to have formerly been).
It may be a Restoration+ rather than a simple Restoration(lite) but either way it is a restoration (and thus utterly opposed to Evolution which says there is no condition to be restored back to but rather only one to head forward into).
Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?
I cannot see a way around this.
Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.
Note: Keep in mind that I hold to Theistic Evolution, not Creationism, so I do not have a pro-Creationist axe to grind in any way.
Are you a sinner in need of a savior, yes or no?
Does evolution change that, yes or no?
What interest has an agnostic in such matters?
Ok your not interested in the best historical narratives from antiquity, that's your prerogative. As far as evidence would you like rationalism, paleontology or genomic comparisons? You see unlike most atheists I actually took the time to explore the evidence before getting embroiled in my pet dogmas.You would first need to establish that these things actually occured, before trying to explain them. So far, all you have are claims in ancient religious texts. Such claims are a dime a dozen.
And once again, you skipped a couple rather important steps.
What god? What "miracle"? What "authoring of life"?
Don't ask me, I'm not a follower of your religion. For me, this is a total non-issue.
I don't have any need, emotional or otherwise, for marrying these ancient religious claims with observable reality.
I don't have an urge or invested interest in sticking to beliefs that aren't even in evidence....
Especially not those beliefs that are actually contradicted by the evidence.
How so?
Care to give an example?
You're asking questions -- I have an interest in helping people find answers.
Ok your not interested in the best historical narratives from antiquity, that's your prerogative. As far as evidence would you like rationalism, paleontology or genomic comparisons? You see unlike most atheists I actually took the time to explore the evidence before getting embroiled in my pet dogmas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?