Cannibalism: Things are getting ugly

[Whag]

Since God knows 'the end from the beginning", and His purpose when coming to this Earth was the salvation of MAN, do you really think that God didn't have mankind in view for His creation? We are the pinnacle of God's creation, and if evolution the way it is taught was actually true, then this would not be the case, as we we'll evolve into something better later on, and there would also have been no need for the Resurrection of Christ. The reason that it wouldn't be needed, is that we would simply be highly intelligent animals, and we would just be living as animals do, with no sin(Jesus didn't come to save animals, but mankind). This rips the very FOUNDATION of why Jesus came right out of the ground.

How should it be taught?

[Cerebrum123]

How should it be taught?

Truthfully.

[rogue06]

We are the pinnacle of God's creation, and if evolution the way it is taught was actually true, then this would not be the case, as we we'll evolve into something better later on,

There is nothing in the ToE that suggests that anything including man will evolve into anything "better." That seems to be a form of orthogenesis -- a view held in some quarters in the first half of the last century but utterly abandoned by the end of the1950s thanks in part to the work of George G. Simpson.

[Whag]

Truthfully.

With various extreme exceptions of teachers going out of bounds and promoting atheism in class, evolution IS taught truthfully. Those extreme exceptions don't require educational reform any more than fundamentalist teachers inserting their dogma in the classroom necessitates reform. Evolution is true.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Since God knows 'the end from the beginning", and His purpose when coming to this Earth was the salvation of MAN, do you really think that God didn't have mankind in view for His creation? We are the pinnacle of God's creation, and if evolution the way it is taught was actually true, then this would not be the case, as we we'll evolve into something better later on, and there would also have been no need for the Resurrection of Christ. The reason that it wouldn't be needed, is that we would simply be highly intelligent animals, and we would just be living as animals do, with no sin(Jesus didn't come to save animals, but mankind). This rips the very FOUNDATION of why Jesus came right out of the ground.

I don't know why a further evolution of the human race would invalidate the existence of sin or the need of salvation. Other animals don't sin because they lack self-awareness or complex abstract thought that allows for moral reasoning. Unless humanity were to evolve "downward" and lose its cognitive abilities, there is little hope of losing our capacity for sin.

Christ's purpose for descending to earth was indeed the salvation of Man. However, we cannot say that was the purpose in God creating the earth. This would create a very large theodicy problem if God specifically created Man with the purpose, rather than the knowledge, of Man's sin and Fall from grace.

So there's nothing unorthodox with supposing that God had mankind "in view" for His creation but not necessarily exclusively as His purpose in Creation. God's prescription for Man's Fall is just that — a prescription for Man. There is no necessary reason that other sentient species could not attain moral awareness and travel a similar path as Man's.

—Sam

[Whag]

I don't know why a further evolution of the human race would invalidate the existence of sin or the need of salvation. Other animals don't sin because they lack self-awareness or complex abstract thought that allows for moral reasoning. Unless humanity were to evolve "downward" and lose its cognitive abilities, there is little hope of losing our capacity for sin.

Christ's purpose for descending to earth was indeed the salvation of Man. However, we cannot say that was the purpose in God creating the earth. This would create a very large theodicy problem if God specifically created Man with the purpose, rather than the knowledge, of Man's sin and Fall from grace.

So there's nothing unorthodox with supposing that God had mankind "in view" for His creation but not necessarily exclusively as His purpose in Creation. God's prescription for Man's Fall is just that — a prescription for Man. There is no necessary reason that other sentient species could not attain moral awareness and travel a similar path as Man's.

—Sam

Sam, not to derail--I actually think this is quite relevant to the discussion (didn't we start with cannibalism?)....

Have you read the latest findings on psychopathy and its prevalence? It's pretty amazing stuff. If not, I can recommend some readings and documentaries.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sam, not to derail--I actually think this is quite relevant to the discussion (didn't we start with cannibalism?)....

Have you read the latest findings on psychopathy and its prevalence? It's pretty amazing stuff. If not, I can recommend some readings and documentaries.

I thoroughly enjoy watching and listening to Jon Ronson interviews and "The Psychopath Test" has been on my to-read list for a couple months. Any extra sources (especially documentaries) would be great appreciated!

I tend toward the neurosis side of the equation so it's really interesting to examine the mentality of the extreme opposite.

[Whag]

I thoroughly enjoy watching and listening to Jon Ronson interviews and "The Psychopath Test" has been on my to-read list for a couple months. Any extra sources (especially documentaries) would be great appreciated!

I tend toward the neurosis side of the equation so it's really interesting to examine the mentality of the extreme opposite.

This might be too elementary for you. It's the BBC Horizon episode on psychopathy. There's a great dramatic turn in it that really made me think hard about free will.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-you-good-or-evil/

[Ansgar Seraph]

This might be too elementary for you. It's the BBC Horizon episode on psychopathy. There's a great dramatic turn in it that really made me think hard about free will.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-you-good-or-evil/

Cool -- thanks!

Now to see if I can cram it onto the GoogleTV . . .

[Cerebrum123]

I don't know why a further evolution of the human race would invalidate the existence of sin or the need of salvation. Other animals don't sin because they lack self-awareness or complex abstract thought that allows for moral reasoning. Unless humanity were to evolve "downward" and lose its cognitive abilities, there is little hope of losing our capacity for sin.

Christ's purpose for descending to earth was indeed the salvation of Man. However, we cannot say that was the purpose in God creating the earth. This would create a very large theodicy problem if God specifically created Man with the purpose, rather than the knowledge, of Man's sin and Fall from grace.

So there's nothing unorthodox with supposing that God had mankind "in view" for His creation but not necessarily exclusively as His purpose in Creation. God's prescription for Man's Fall is just that — a prescription for Man. There is no necessary reason that other sentient species could not attain moral awareness and travel a similar path as Man's.

—Sam

1.Ok, since rogue pointed out that evolution doesn't necessitate "better", and only carries survival advantage. then it is definitely a possibility that man could "devolve" to a point that there was no more morality. This idea is ludicrous from a Biblical standpoint, but entirely possible under evolutionary scenarios. Also, if evolution is true, then it still doesn't explain how we are actually sinful. We would just be one highly advanced animal, with nothing special, and our acting on our instincts would simply be the same as any other animal doing the same thing.

2. God having man as the purpose of creation doesn't mean that the fall of man was purposely done(although God would have known that it would happen anyway, Him being omniscient and all). This is not something that is a problem for theodicy, not anymore than God's omniscience, and His foreknowledge of the fall.

3. The very idea of other creatures evolving to be sentient would make it so that we have moral creatures that can't be included in the salvation that Jesus offers. Jesus came as our "kinsmen redeemer", and any other such creatures would not be "kinsmen". This would take away from the sufficiency of Christ, and would further take away from God's character as revealed in the Bible. The idea of multiple saviors for multiple "sentient" species is downright insane, but why should I expect anything less from a system that pretty much takes God either out of the picture, or makes Him for all intents and purposes an "unnecessary hypothesis" that is simply just added to the mix.

[Whag]

3. The very idea of other creatures evolving to be sentient would make it so that we have moral creatures that can't be included in the salvation that Jesus offers. Jesus came as our "kinsmen redeemer", and any other such creatures would not be "kinsmen".

We are all family, Cerebrum. That's an amazing fact of nature!

[Ansgar Seraph]

1.Ok, since rogue pointed out that evolution doesn't necessitate "better", and only carries survival advantage. then it is definitely a possibility that man could "devolve" to a point that there was no more morality. This idea is ludicrous from a Biblical standpoint, but entirely possible under evolutionary scenarios. Also, if evolution is true, then it still doesn't explain how we are actually sinful. We would just be one highly advanced animal, with nothing special, and our acting on our instincts would simply be the same as any other animal doing the same thing.

Such a "devolution" would take millions upon millions of years to get us to the point of no longer having consciousness. I figure that if we come to that point, a potentially huge theme in the Bible, the Resurrection of the Saints, will have long-since become tenuous.

Evolution isn't necessary to explain sin . . . unless you are saying that humans couldn't be sinful if they evolved. But since sin requires only self-awareness and moral reason, it doesn't much matter how these preconditions were met. Humans could have evolved to the point of emergent consciousness or God could have imparted a soul into humans, giving them moral reason. What's important is that there's nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents a species from attaining ethical or moral codes.

2. God having man as the purpose of creation doesn't mean that the fall of man was purposely done(although God would have known that it would happen anyway, Him being omniscient and all). This is not something that is a problem for theodicy, not anymore than God's omniscience, and His foreknowledge of the fall.

You had written that God's purpose for coming to earth was the salvation of Man; if we extend that purpose for God having created the earth for the salvation of Man, that does get into theodicy problems, since God would have purposed something that required the Fall.

But if you're only saying that God's purpose for creating the earth was to create Man, I'd say that's possible but seems entirely chauvinistic to me. Even more so if you were to say that God's purpose for creating the universe, with an untold number of other planets capable of supporting life, was the creation of our particular species.

3. The very idea of other creatures evolving to be sentient would make it so that we have moral creatures that can't be included in the salvation that Jesus offers. Jesus came as our "kinsmen redeemer", and any other such creatures would not be "kinsmen". This would take away from the sufficiency of Christ, and would further take away from God's character as revealed in the Bible. The idea of multiple saviors for multiple "sentient" species is downright insane, but why should I expect anything less from a system that pretty much takes God either out of the picture, or makes Him for all intents and purposes an "unnecessary hypothesis" that is simply just added to the mix.

Why would other creatures be unable to partake in Christ's salvation? I don't think that I ever advocated a "multiple saviors" scenario. It's possible, if other species developed the need for a salvation akin to humankind, that Christ would come to them also. It could be possible that human kind, like the Israelite nation before it, has been chosen by grace and charity to bring the salvation of Christ to other peoples. I think it's a good exercise to ask just what doctrine is violated by other creatures gaining an understanding of God and a capacity for moral reasoning? It's not even a drastic hypothetical . . . we will develop machines, within the next 100-300 years, with these capacities. It would be good to have a theological framework available to address their integration.

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

We are all family, Cerebrum. That's an amazing fact of nature!

Would a sentient being from an Earth like being be truly related? I don't hear of ANYONE claiming that other sentient life will evolve on Earth, but plenty about it happening on other planets, and considering the way that mankind currently dominates this planet, do you think that there is a real chance of something like the "Planet of the Apes" movie happening?

[Sparko]

Would a sentient being from an Earth like being be truly related? I don't hear of ANYONE claiming that other sentient life will evolve on Earth, but plenty about it happening on other planets, and considering the way that mankind currently dominates this planet, do you think that there is a real chance of something like the "Planet of the Apes" movie happening?

Skynet.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Would a sentient being from an Earth like being be truly related? I don't hear of ANYONE claiming that other sentient life will evolve on Earth, but plenty about it happening on other planets, and considering the way that mankind currently dominates this planet, do you think that there is a real chance of something like the "Planet of the Apes" movie happening?

I would say that certain other creatures on earth, while incapable of true moral reasoning, are certainly sentient and deserve to be treated much better than they currently are. As such, I don't see a hypothetical barrier between our present selves and their potential future selves.