Page 11 of 33 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 325

Thread: If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Non-supernaturalist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,123
    Amen (Given)
    55
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertBerean View Post
    My suggestion is Adam and Eve did not continue in their innocence for very long before their fall and the consequences, which includeddeath. I DID hear a suggestion that animals did die during this time before the Fall. Well, maybe...otherwise our first parents wouldn't understand the concept of death.

    And KG is correct, spiritual death began there as well. Since A & E were made in the image of God, I suggest this had a serious impact on their nature, allowing sin to distort us at the very core and causing God to separate from their disobedient attitudes. I'm not fully read on this problem and I don't think anyone can really see the full answer.

    And I still contend the issue of evolution has noting to do with our need for salvation.
    Ok. So what you are saying is this:

    ---Evolution and the natural selection of species is true.
    ---Human beings are the result of a long process of natural selection, evolving from lower life forms over millions of years.
    ---God chose, for reasons known only to him, to intervene at one point in time in the process of natural selection, at a point in time when homo sapiens existed and selected two homo sapiens (a male and a female) which he then made in his image in their ongoing evolutionary development, and gave them souls, something that no other animal possessed.
    ---Shortly after giving these two homo sapiens souls, free will, and the ability to recognize moral right and wrong, unlike any other animal species on the planet, the homo sapiens chose to rebel against God, and therefore God decided that he needed to punish them with hardships in this life and eternal damnation (of some sort, which we will leave undefined) in the next.
    ---He also decided at the same time, that to provide homo sapiens an escape from eternal damnation, he would send the second person of himself to earth, to be tortured and killed, to pay the penalty for homo sapien disobedience.

    Is that accurate?

  2. #102
    40th Mojave Summer DesertBerean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Barstow, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    5,254
    Amen (Given)
    4222
    Amen (Received)
    1512
    No. Here, I've taken your post and changed it in the bolded areas. (I misplaced some bolding but I think I fixed it all.)

    Here's the thing I probably did not make clear enough. While we ARE creatures like animals, we ARE NOT animals. We're HUMANS.


    --- Evolution and the natural selection has no bearing on our need for salvation (never mind that I don't believe in it anyway)
    --- Human beings are the result of special creation by God Himself
    ---God chose, for reasons known only to him, created a male and a female which he then made in his image and gave them souls, something that no other creature possessed.
    ---Shortly after giving these two souls, free will, and the ability to recognize moral right and wrong, unlike any other creature they chose to rebel against God, and therefore God separated himself from them and imposed hardships in this life and permitted eternal SELF- damnation in the next.
    ---He had already intended to provide them an escape from eternal damnation, by sending the second person of himself to earth, to be tortured and killed, to pay the penalty for their disobedience, and RISING FROM THE DEAD to defeat the penalty of death for those who turned back in obedience to Him.

  3. Amen LostSheep amen'd this post.
  4. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Non-supernaturalist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,123
    Amen (Given)
    55
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertBerean View Post
    No. Here, I've taken your post and changed it in the bolded areas. (I misplaced some bolding but I think I fixed it all.)

    Here's the thing I probably did not make clear enough. While we ARE creatures like animals, we ARE NOT animals. We're HUMANS.
    " Evolution and the natural selection has no bearing on our need for salvation (never mind that I don't believe in it anyway), and, Human beings are the result of special creation by God Himself"

    YOUR version of evolution (which does not exist outside of your brain) may have no bearing on humans' need for salvation, but the true version of evolution most certainly does, because you cannot claim that homo sapiens are the result of a special creation by God himself when we know as established scientific fact that homo sapiens E-V-O-L--V-E-D from lower life forms over BILLIONS of year!!!! You cannot be "specially created" and evolve! That is nonsensical.

    In conclusion:

    --- you do not believe in theistic evolution.

    ---Our discussion was pointless.

    ---I would like to discuss this issue with someone who actually believes it, and not someone making up any collection of baloney just in an attempt to shut me up.
    Last edited by Gary; 07-20-2016 at 04:22 AM.

  5. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Non-supernaturalist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,123
    Amen (Given)
    55
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    In essence, yes, though you're missing some of the fine distinctions I tried to make. These weren't really thought of as "fiction." Scholars have known for 150 years that the gospels don't just record the stories of Jesus. They also speak to the concerns of the Christian communities. For example, John 21 is an attempt to allay fears that Jesus isn't returning any time soon. Matthew 16:28 is another example of this- the community is being persecuted, but it shouldn't be concerned about persecution. Jesus is coming back soon and the world will be put to rights.

    However, in general, these kind of things can also be attributed to how the material was spread in the first place- through preaching. Mark 13:14 states "let the reader understand," possibly an exhortation to explain something to the crowd. Generally, when you have an oral culture, stories vary, but the gist of the story remains the same.



    The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative. As for the appearance stories, I disagree. The resurrection narratives seem to bespeak competing traditions. The Markan narrative excludes Peter from the rest of the disciples (maybe the Romans didn't like Peter). The Lukan narrative has Peter discovering the grave clothes. The Johannine narrative has a race between the Beloved Disciple and Peter in order to reach the tomb first.

    I tend to think that Mark's ending is actually a result of the way Mark constructed his gospel, rather than lack of knowledge about any appearances. I can go into that in some more detail if you want.

    "The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative."


    Is this a scholarly consensus, a majority opinion of scholars, solely the opinion of the two scholars you mention, or simply your opinion?

  6. #105
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,314
    Amen (Given)
    163
    Amen (Received)
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    I think you misunderstood me. I am not denying the historicity of appearance claims. I accept that appearance claims developed very shortly after Jesus' death. What I am suggesting is that maybe the appearance stories, as told by the Gospel authors, are theological fictions. The purpose of these stories was to inspire early Christians to have faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an attempt to rewrite history.
    As I said, the appearance stories bespeak competing traditions.

    So isn't it possible that the "eyewitnesses" (if any where still alive in 70 AD when the first Gospel was written) read the Gospel of Mark, noticed that there were details in the story that they had never heard of before, but did not challenge the "inspiration" of these texts because they understood that the purpose of these books was not to teach first century history but to enrich the faith of believers and to encourage the spread of the Gospel?
    Yes and no. The eyewitnesses likely would've been preaching the gospel message until their deaths, whether by persecution or natural causes. This is pure guesswork here, but whatever changes were made were to adapt the message for the audience. For example, Matthew's infancy narrative (let's assume that Jesus didn't tell the disciples about his birth) is intended to display Jesus as the new Moses. This supercessionist narrative fits the concerns of the Matthean community. The gospels are not simply "our faith in Jesus," but also Greco-Roman biography. There are certain parts of the story, however, that don't exactly fit the needs of the community nor of earlier Judaism (what's called the criterion of dissimilarity).

    I agree that it would be very odd for Mark not to have believed in appearances. We have evidence from Paul that the Creed quoted in First Corinthians 15 was in use in the Church very early in the history of the Church and this list includes multiple appearances. So the absence of appearances in Mark is not proof that Mark had never heard of appearances. However, it is possible that Mark had never heard of the appearance stories as written by later authors of the three other gospels. Bottom line: we don't know what Mark believed about appearances.
    I disagree. We actually know a little bit about what Mark believed about appearances. Mark believed that Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee, as is portended in Mark 16:7. He betrays knowledge of a Galilean appearance tradition. Again, I think there are better reasons for Mark's lack of appearances than simply "Mark didn't know of the later appearance traditions." As I said earlier in the thread, Mark's gospel has a ridiculously fast pace. It's the shortest gospel by far and uses fairly simple Greek. The ending of Mark is somewhat of a mystery to me- perhaps he assumed that the reader would fill in the gaps.

    But the Empty Tomb is a big issue. Would you agree that the Empty Tomb might have been a theological embellishment, either by "Mark" himself, or by a leader/group in the Church who was attempting to put more "meat on the bones" of the Christian resurrection claim?
    Certain elements of the empty tomb are certainly embellished (e.g. Jesus is buried in Joseph's personal tomb, which has never been used before, etc.). However, historically speaking, the burial narrative is rather in keeping with what we know about Jewish burial practices. In terms of theological embellishment, I don't think so, and here's why: the empty tomb seems to be a cornerstone of the early Resurrection faith. The apostles seem to have believed, despite every disposition, that Jesus had truly risen bodily from the dead. See the kerygmatic statement in Acts 10:39-43. While Luke does occasionally make up material for speeches, this speech likely has an authentic core.

  7. #106
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,314
    Amen (Given)
    163
    Amen (Received)
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post

    "The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative."


    Is this a scholarly consensus, a majority opinion of scholars, or simply your opinion?
    I would contend that it's a majority opinion. There are competent scholars who have disputed its historicity, though they're likely in the minority.

  8. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Non-supernaturalist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,123
    Amen (Given)
    55
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    As I said, the appearance stories bespeak competing traditions.



    Yes and no. The eyewitnesses likely would've been preaching the gospel message until their deaths, whether by persecution or natural causes. This is pure guesswork here, but whatever changes were made were to adapt the message for the audience. For example, Matthew's infancy narrative (let's assume that Jesus didn't tell the disciples about his birth) is intended to display Jesus as the new Moses. This supercessionist narrative fits the concerns of the Matthean community. The gospels are not simply "our faith in Jesus," but also Greco-Roman biography. There are certain parts of the story, however, that don't exactly fit the needs of the community nor of earlier Judaism (what's called the criterion of dissimilarity).



    I disagree. We actually know a little bit about what Mark believed about appearances. Mark believed that Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee, as is portended in Mark 16:7. He betrays knowledge of a Galilean appearance tradition. Again, I think there are better reasons for Mark's lack of appearances than simply "Mark didn't know of the later appearance traditions." As I said earlier in the thread, Mark's gospel has a ridiculously fast pace. It's the shortest gospel by far and uses fairly simple Greek. The ending of Mark is somewhat of a mystery to me- perhaps he assumed that the reader would fill in the gaps.



    Certain elements of the empty tomb are certainly embellished (e.g. Jesus is buried in Joseph's personal tomb, which has never been used before, etc.). However, historically speaking, the burial narrative is rather in keeping with what we know about Jewish burial practices. In terms of theological embellishment, I don't think so, and here's why: the empty tomb seems to be a cornerstone of the early Resurrection faith. The apostles seem to have believed, despite every disposition, that Jesus had truly risen bodily from the dead. See the kerygmatic statement in Acts 10:39-43. While Luke does occasionally make up material for speeches, this speech likely has an authentic core.
    "the empty tomb seems to be a cornerstone of the early Resurrection faith. The apostles seem to have believed, despite every disposition, that Jesus had truly risen bodily from the dead."

    I agree that an empty grave seems to be the cornerstone of the early Resurrection belief, but what evidence is there for an early, empty rock tomb belief? There is no mention in Paul's epistles of a "rock" tomb only a presumed "grave" as one must be in a grave of some sort to be "buried" and then "raised up" .

    It is therefore possible and consistent with Paul's writings that Jesus' body was "buried" in an unmarked dirt trench, along with other persons executed that week, covered over, and forgotten. Shortly thereafter, some of Jesus' followers had experiences which led them to believe that Jesus had appeared to them in a bodily form and therefore that he had been bodily resurrected. They therefore believed that the grave of Jesus was empty because they had (they believed) seen his resurrected body, not because they had been given the opportunity to inspect an actual grave for a missing corpse.

    This isn't my invented theory, it is what Ehrman thinks probably happened.
    Last edited by Gary; 07-20-2016 at 04:45 AM.

  9. #108
    40th Mojave Summer DesertBerean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Barstow, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    5,254
    Amen (Given)
    4222
    Amen (Received)
    1512
    Lol...and this has more to do with the price of tea in China than my views? Ooookay. Peace out.

  10. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  11. #109
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,136
    Amen (Given)
    5473
    Amen (Received)
    5006
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertBerean View Post
    Lol...and this has more to do with the price of tea in China than my views? Ooookay. Peace out.
    Gary's approach is an "everything and the kitchen sink" one.

  12. Amen DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  13. #110
    Professor Catholicity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the neighbor of the yellow brick road
    Faith
    Ecumenical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    3,539
    Amen (Given)
    1030
    Amen (Received)
    1435
    Gary, "God made man from the dust of the Earth" So lets pretend that passage is NOT literal and he used evolution and man evolved from bacterial specimens to our ancestors. At one point a Bipedal great ape he chose to give "an immortal" soul too. hence man came from the dust of the earth. Given that I don't believe that the days mentioned in genesis are literal, what part of that is not consistent with Evolution of human kind? Or are you so stuck in your ways you cannot possibly believe a Christian can be a TE
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •