God breathed life when he made man from the dust of the earth. I assume that passage means gave man a soul. Not sure what else your looking for.
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostIn a nutshell, anatomically modern humans are not necessarily spiritual humans. I can't explain it particularly well, so look at Ed Feser's work on the matter. Articles are called something like "the monkey in the soul."
That's right, Mr. Skeptic. Go read another book.
God forbid that I would simply hand wave away your superstitions as being silly, unprovable nonsense.
You see, folks. This is the classic pattern of moderate Christians. They deny all the supernatural claims in the Bible that scientists have disproven, but, cling to the ones that (as yet) have not been disproven. They then attempt to dress up these remaining superstitions with intellectual pseudo-babble, such as "anatomically modern humans are not necessarily spiritual humans".
Why not just accept the obvious: The Bible is a collection of ancient fables and nationalist folklore. It should not be used to determine historical facts or scientific facts. Therefore, you can comfortably rest assured that:
---humans do not possess an invisible body part called a "soul".
---virgins are never impregnated by ghosts.
---three-day-dead corpses STAY DEAD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostGod breathed life when he made man from the dust of the earth. I assume that passage means gave man a soul. Not sure what else your looking for.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostThanks for the comment. However, I was looking to engage Christians who believe in "theistic evolution", not someone who believes the Creation story literally. I happen to believe that your belief, however wrong it may be, is at least congruent with the Christian concept of humans needing a Savior.A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostGee you took me wrong.. I AM a TE. I just stted that I believe that passage in scripture is consistent with the evolution of man. you need to learn to ask questions...
I thought you believed in Evolution. There is nothing in Evolution about the human species being made directly from dust.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"God breathed life when he made man from the dust of the earth."
I thought you believed in Evolution. There is nothing in Evolution about the human species being made directly from dust.
"The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them"
I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.
Possibly an even better example of this can be seen in Isaiah 42:14 which records God as saying
I have kept silent for a long time, I have kept still and restrained Myself, Now like a woman in labor I will groan, I will gasp and pant
Now maybe some might take this literally but as for myself I see this as a figure of speech to convey that God will clearly and plainly express His pent-up wrath (see the verses immediately before and after for context).
The purpose of such anthropomorphic language is to describe God in terms that are more understandable to humans rather than claiming that God has a bodily form.
Now I'm not saying that it couldn't be done this way (after all God is God), but rather in instances where anthropomorphic language is employed we should proceed with caution about taking that text literally.
I'm merely saying that if we, who were born out of our mother's wombs, are described in similar language as how Adam was created -- being shaped by God (Job 10:8) as a potter does clay (Isaiah 64:8; Romans 9:21) and given the breath of life (Job 33:4) -- that this is suggestive that Adam largely came about through the same processes as we do.
To be clear, I think the bestowing of an immortal soul was a divine act and not something that could evolve.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostThat's right, Mr. Skeptic. Go read another book.
God forbid that I would simply hand wave away your superstitions as being silly, unprovable nonsense.
You see, folks. This is the classic pattern of moderate Christians. They deny all the supernatural claims in the Bible that scientists have disproven, but, cling to the ones that (as yet) have not been disproven. They then attempt to dress up these remaining superstitions with intellectual pseudo-babble, such as "anatomically modern humans are not necessarily spiritual humans".
Why not just accept the obvious: The Bible is a collection of ancient fables and nationalist folklore. It should not be used to determine historical facts or scientific facts. Therefore, you can comfortably rest assured that:
---humans do not possess an invisible body part called a "soul".
---virgins are never impregnated by ghosts.
---three-day-dead corpses STAY DEAD.
It's also not a book; it's a blog post available online.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011...in-part-i.html
Comment
-
What supernatural claims have scientists disproved?Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostEducating myself is tough. I'd rather remain an ignorant fundie.
It's also not a book; it's a blog post available online.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011...in-part-i.html
Why don't you just admit it: you are trying to dress up an ancient superstition with a lot of "intellectual-ese".
Admit the obvious: The supernatural claims in the Bible are just as probable to be true as the supernatural claims about Zeus and the gods of Mt. Olympus. No amount of intellectual psycho-babble makes ancient Greek, Roman, or Christian supernatural tales more believable.
Folks: If you really want to believe something, no matter how preposterous and out-of-this-world, you can always make up intellectual sounding theories to support it. We see this phenomenon all the time in the world of conspiracy theories. I suggest we start with the evidence and accept the conclusions that the evidence points to instead of starting with an ancient superstition and trying desperately to invent intellectual-sounding theories to support its believability.Last edited by Gary; 07-18-2016, 07:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostWhat supernatural claims have scientists disproved?
-young earth
-world wide flood
-the earth is the center of the universe; the sun revolves around the earth.
-large exodus of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Hebrews from ancient Egypt, who wander in a nearby desert for 40 years until all but two of them are dead.Last edited by Gary; 07-18-2016, 07:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe account in Genesis 2 describes a corporeal, physical deity with hands to work the dust/clay and a literal pair of lungs, mouth and nose to blow in the breath of life. To me that is an anthropomorphic expression much like Exodus 7:5 when it says:
"The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them"
I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.
Possibly an even better example of this can be seen in Isaiah 42:14 which records God as saying
I have kept silent for a long time, I have kept still and restrained Myself, Now like a woman in labor I will groan, I will gasp and pant
Now maybe some might take this literally but as for myself I see this as a figure of speech to convey that God will clearly and plainly express His pent-up wrath (see the verses immediately before and after for context).
The purpose of such anthropomorphic language is to describe God in terms that are more understandable to humans rather than claiming that God has a bodily form.
Now I'm not saying that it couldn't be done this way (after all God is God), but rather in instances where anthropomorphic language is employed we should proceed with caution about taking that text literally.
I'm merely saying that if we, who were born out of our mother's wombs, are described in similar language as how Adam was created -- being shaped by God (Job 10:8) as a potter does clay (Isaiah 64:8; Romans 9:21) and given the breath of life (Job 33:4) -- that this is suggestive that Adam largely came about through the same processes as we do.
To be clear, I think the bestowing of an immortal soul was a divine act and not something that could evolve.
Maybe the same is true when the authors of the Gospels spoke about the "Resurrection" of Jesus. They didn't intend to mean that God reanimated a dead body. They knew that the early Resurrection belief was originally based solely on visions and vivid dreams, not on sightings of a real walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating body. It is anthropomorphic language, signifying that God figuratively "raised" Jesus, in spiritual sense, to spiritually uplift mankind.
Sounds reasonable.Last edited by Gary; 07-18-2016, 07:23 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostMany "moderate" and even some self-identified "conservative" Christians here on TW seem to be very comfortable with the theory of evolution and the natural selection of species. These same conservative/moderate Christians also believe that human beings are "sinners" who are in need of a savior. Are these two beliefs compatible? Here's the question:
"If human beings are evolved from lower life forms, why do we need a Savior? If we and all other animals on earth have evolved from the same primordial slime, why do we humans need a Savior but the great apes, cows, and chickens do not?""The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostKnuckle-dragging fundie.
When Christians don't believe evolution happened, they are 'knuckling dragging fundies'.
When Christians do believe that evolution happened, they are not 'serious Christians'.
No matter what, Christians are stoopid, right?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostGary, this isn't Back to the Future 2. I don't freak out when someone calls me chicken, especially when it's someone I esteem with as little regard as I do you. I've mentioned my views on this forum a number of times. So far the mods haven't required me to change my faith designation. I think i'll be okay."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostBecause humans are the only group of animals that understand their sinful nature (for example) and need redemption for our sinful nature? Do keep showing that you're ruled by your fundy past and never bother to understand other Christians positions beyond what you believed as a fundy.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:13 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
414 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment