Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Theistic Evolution And The Fall Of Man?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
    If you don't want to know how TEs deal with Adam, why did you start a thread asking how TEs deal with Adam?

    Clearly, he started this thread so he could tell them they are all wrong. What they actually say doesn't much matter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      Klaus, you're not a TE, so why are you posting in this thread?
      'Cause I used to be "TE" and have been intimate with the CrEvo issue for over four decades.

      I also know the Bible pretty well.

      K54

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by phank View Post
        But it seems to me that all seer has to do is select different texts, and all is reconciled. As you point out, he has plenty of compatible texts to choose from. Given the mind-boggling weight of every compatible text, it's an exercise in sheer perversity to cast about for the few that can't be reconciled -- and then complain about the results of this effort.

        Good point.

        YEC/anti-evolution is not the only interpretation in Judeo-Christianity.

        K54

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Thanks for the link, but I don't see how anything but a literal Adam who is the biological father of all men can be reconciled to the texts.
          Then you need to actually read the book that I recommended! All of the authors are biblical scholars who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Walton is not a TE, Lamoureux is a TE, but both of them present views of the text that are "TE-friendly".
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            Then you need to actually read the book that I recommended! All of the authors are biblical scholars who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Walton is not a TE, Lamoureux is a TE, but both of them present views of the text that are "TE-friendly".
            I suspect Walton is increasingly leaning towards TE. But yeah, seer should read the book.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              The reason I'm posting this here is that this is where I have seen those who hold this view. But if A moderator wants to move it that is fine.

              OK, how theistic evolutionists deal with the fall of man and sin:

              Rom.5

              Death in Adam, Life in Christ




              So it seems clear that sin and death (whether just human death or spiritual death) entered the human condition by one man. Was there a literal Adam? A man who is the biological father of all living human beings?
              One thing you must keep in mind is that Paul is constructing an map between the constructs, a comparison showing where they are similar or alike. But the allegory is not one to one. There are differences. So whatever elements of your doctrine that are based on the allegory presented being a precise match, you must be careful - they are not. For one, the righteousness of Christ simply becomes available to all, but we must choose to receive it. Whereas the death that came through sin comes to all whether they want it or not. Secondarily, the inheritance of Adam to all men is through the physical, the inheritance of Christ is not. Not right away anyway. In Adam we are sinners and that is who we are. In Christ, though the new man is created, it is at war with the old till we die. And so on.

              Scientifically, there isn't a lot of room for a discrete and singular physical Adam. But there IS room for a man through whom this all played out. Consider that Christ was unique, but at least in 1/2 came from US, plural. Likewise perhaps Adam came from his predecessors, but was also unique and miraculously imbued by the creator, marking a new chapter, one that is uniquely 'mankind'. In that sense, he is the singular
              Father of mankind, as Christ is the singular first born of the redeemed. It isn't that hard then to draw a very similar parallel, at least as similar as the comparison Paul is making in the passage you quote.

              The chief difference between looking at it from a more simplistic perspective than how I am above is primarily tradition. And we have to move forward. As we learn more about God's world, if the scripture is true, then we will 'see' more of what is in scripture, and realize that some of our old ideas about the scripture were formed more out of ignorance than any required consequence. Much the same as when we came to understand the language of the scripture about the cosmos was phenomenal and that it our sense that the Earth must not move for scripture to be true was not in fact demanded by the text.

              As we have discussed before, the scripture was written within a cultural context. And God has clearly allowed His truths to be carried on the fabric of that context. This means we must be careful when we read it and discover that some element was not necessarily part of the message but rather part of the context itself not to cling too tenaciously to what we eventually come to realize was just a misreading of the text.

              It is humbling to realize we may get some or a lot of it wrong. Our law based mentality doesn't want to have to truly depend upon Christ's grace. Somehow we always want to add a little bit of what we can do to the mix, and we also tend to think that if we get some of it wrong along the way Christ's grace won't quite be enough. But that really is not how it is at all.

              So as a TE, I hold to a dual view of Adam. He is an individual, but he is also all of us. Adam is a man, and Adam is all of mankind. Adam THE man probably had a human father and mother, though I can just as easily believe he miraculously created. But his DNA would show the history of evolution either way except for the elements that made him uniquely suited to represent us all, or that separated him from his ancestors and made the break that is mankind from his ancestors.

              Thus the story of the Garden and the passage of Paul you quote are quite real. But also quite abstract and 'mythical'.

              Originally posted by CS Lewis
              “Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'.”
              CS Lewis speaks then of the myth that is real. I look at Adam and Christ in this way.


              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-02-2015, 08:51 PM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                'Cause I used to be "TE" and have been intimate with the CrEvo issue for over four decades.

                I also know the Bible pretty well.

                K54


                What are you now?
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post


                  What are you now?
                  Interested in science, and agnostic about how the supernatural interacts or would interact with nature. Hence the (?).

                  I never liked the term TE. It's category error IMHO. Why not TM = Theistic Meteorology?

                  BTW, I'm not much of a Christian anymore, at least not of the cultic ilk of Jorge, seer, etc.

                  Those idiots have no idea of the damage they're doing.

                  k54

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    'Cause I used to be "TE" and have been intimate with the CrEvo issue for over four decades.

                    I also know the Bible pretty well.

                    K54
                    Then you need to answer as a TE would and not how you now believe. Seer in his OP specifically asked how TE's handle Adam and Eve, not how agnostic ?'s answer the question. That goes for the rest of you that are agnostic or atheist. If you are not TE, you need to answer according to that paradigm or stop cluttering this thread.
                    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                      Then you need to answer as a TE would and not how you now believe. Seer in his OP specifically asked how TE's handle Adam and Eve, not how agnostic ?'s answer the question. That goes for the rest of you that are agnostic or atheist. If you are not TE, you need to answer according to that paradigm or stop cluttering this thread.
                      TE is a worthless term that has many meanings to different folks.

                      I'm answering as an intelligent person who has great knowledge of the CrEvo issue, a decent academic background, a good knowledge of scripture.

                      Seer has already been answered over and over, and he obviously had made his mind up beforehand, and all he's interested in is repeating the same detritus and display his logical and scientific ignorance as he does in all his Nat. Sci. posts.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Interested in science, and agnostic about how the supernatural interacts or would interact with nature. Hence the (?).

                        I never liked the term TE. It's category error IMHO. Why not TM = Theistic Meteorology?

                        BTW, I'm not much of a Christian anymore, at least not of the cultic ilk of Jorge, seer, etc.

                        Those idiots have no idea of the damage they're doing.

                        k54
                        I agree somewhat with your problems with the concept of TE, but go along with it for pragmatic reasons. Natural and Spiritual evolution are Theistic processes that are reflected in natural history of our existence, not only the evolution of life. The Baha'i perspective is that both spiritual and physical human knowledge is a constant evolving process, and change from the human perspective is the rule not the exception. Ancient religions are not willing to accept this constant evolving change, and even criticize the Baha'i Faith, because some scripture does not appear to be scientific. The traditional view is to view scripture as in some way fixed and true as in the Genesis of the Bible and the myths of Adam and Eve, Fall, and the flood.

                        In the Baha'i Faith scripture is NOT fixed truth, and evolves. The only thing that is fixed in Baha'i scripture is moral teachings and the principles that form the guidance of humanity as our knowledge evolves over time.

                        Source: Abdul'baha



                        "Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."

                        Paris Talks, Pages 141-146: gr16

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        It is the moral teaching that are immutable and absolute. Moral teachings change only with Progressive Revelation
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          I never liked the term TE. It's category error IMHO. Why not TM = Theistic Meteorology?
                          This is probably why a number of people -- myself included -- prefer the term "evolutionary creationism".
                          "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                          — Alfred North Whitehead

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            Then you need to answer as a TE would and not how you now believe. Seer in his OP specifically asked how TE's handle Adam and Eve, not how agnostic ?'s answer the question. That goes for the rest of you that are agnostic or atheist. If you are not TE, you need to answer according to that paradigm or stop cluttering this thread.
                            Seer got his answer in Post #6, he just didn't like it. There's nothing in the OP that limits this thread to TEs only.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              Interested in science, and agnostic about how the supernatural interacts or would interact with nature. Hence the (?).

                              I never liked the term TE. It's category error IMHO. Why not TM = Theistic Meteorology?

                              BTW, I'm not much of a Christian anymore, at least not of the cultic ilk of Jorge, seer, etc.

                              Those idiots have no idea of the damage they're doing.

                              k54
                              That makes sense. TE always seemed like an incorrect appellation to me, or at least that it's applied where it ought not be. Is it an actively guided process? Is it a largely passive process with occasional tweaks? Is it a set of rules set in place let to run while knowing the end result? These seem to be different things to me, but they all get lumped together. The real answer to Seer's question isn't going to rely on being a TE, but how one views Original Sin and Adam's potential existence as a representative of the human species. What does TE have to do with any of that?
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
                                This is probably why a number of people -- myself included -- prefer the term "evolutionary creationism".
                                I agree that EC is a much better term.

                                It appears to me that "TE" is used as an implied pejorative by anti-evolutionist theists who want to mock what's (as you say) the better concept of evolutionary creationism.

                                For the Jorge's and seer's, "TE" is pene-synonymous with "Darwinism" (or "goo-to-you-via-the-zoo") or whatever's the latest smart aleck terminology.

                                K54

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X