God, humanity and evolution

daithiocondun

If the Church (Catholic, specifically) accepts evolutionary theory, then how can it still claim that humanity is made special in God's image?

I mean if we are descended from single-celled organisms, then we are really now just in one state of existance which may well be very different in a million years.

How are we any different from cats and dogs since we are only in one stage of the evolutionary process??

The Church now accepts that Adam & Eve is not a factual account of the first human beings and that the world is, in fact, hundreds of millions of years old and existed for most of its life without humans as we now know them.

So, if God created the world in this evolutionary state, then why are we special? We are simply another creature in a state of evolutionary progression.

Any ideas?

Fanny Cradock

Imago Dei

daithiocondun

I am familiar with the concept of The Image of God in Christian theology. But how do we reconcile this with points I made previously?

How can we be made in the image of God if we are simply evolved forms of simple organisms in a process of evolution and change?

Onesimus

doesnt this belong in the big huge thread you guys have? or has that been relaxed these days and is no longer a rule?

Fanny Cradock

Onesimus wrote: »

doesnt this belong in the big huge thread you guys have? or has that been relaxed these days and is no longer a rule?

I may move it in a while. However, seems as this isn't dealing with creationism I don't see the need to move it yet.

Anyway, daithiocondun, have you considered the possibility that the image of God refers to a spiritual image rather than a divine phenotype? You might find some interesting information at Biologos or the Wiki article on theistic evolution.

liamw

I asked this question here before. At what point in evolutionary time did the 'image of god' thing kick in. Was there a child born who was made in the image of god whose parents weren't? I never got an answer.

Seaneh

liamw wrote: »

I asked this question here before. At what point in evolutionary time did the 'image of god' thing kick in. Was there a child born who was made in the image of god whose parents weren't? I never got an answer.

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

ISAW

liamw wrote: »

I asked this question here before. At what point in evolutionary time did the 'image of god' thing kick in.

At the time when humans got souls and consciences?

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

At the time when humans got souls and consciences?

Or at the time when God gave man a spirit.

krudler

Seaneh wrote: »

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

Isnt that saying god isnt omnipotent then? if he had an idea of a final image then why go through the construction stage at all when he can just make man appear as the final idea to begin with? was he working out the kinks for a few thousand years?

If you had an idea for a new invention and could magically bring it from brainstorming to retail sale date in an instant being that you're apparently the most powerful being in the universe, wouldnt you?

PDN

krudler wrote: »

Isnt that saying god isnt omnipotent then?

No, it's saying nothing of the kind.

if he had an idea of a final image then why go through the construction stage at all when he can just make man appear as the final idea to begin with?

Why not? It's up to God to do things how He chooses.

If you had an idea for a new invention and could magically bring it from brainstorming to retail sale date in an instant being that you're apparently the most powerful being in the universe, wouldnt you?

No, because if I was eternal then I wouldn't be in a hurry.

And, who's to say that some purpose wasn't fulfilled during the process?

wolfsbane

liamw wrote: »

I asked this question here before. At what point in evolutionary time did the 'image of god' thing kick in. Was there a child born who was made in the image of god whose parents weren't? I never got an answer.

I too would like some answers from our theistic evolution brethren.

Did God choose one Homo sapien to make human, or all the Homo sapiens then alive? If the former, what did Adam make of his mum and dad?

If all the Homo sapiens, how come all sinned?

Now that the RCC has embraced evolution, we may expect detailed justification of why their new view doesn't contradict their previous view. I found some amusing material here:
Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

But I look more eagerly to my Evangelical brethren to reconcile evolution with the Biblical account of creation - and especially of the Fall.
_________________________________________________________________
"'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day." (Basil, Homily II:8)

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

I too would like some answers from our theistic evolution brethren.

Did God choose one Homo sapien to make human, or all the Homo sapiens then alive? If the former, what did Adam make of his mum and dad?

If all the Homo sapiens, how come all sinned?

Now that the RCC has embraced evolution, we may expect detailed justification of why their new view doesn't contradict their previous view. I found some amusing material here:
Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

But I look more eagerly to my Evangelical brethren to reconcile evolution with the Biblical account of creation - and especially of the Fall.
_________________________________________________________________
"'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day." (Basil, Homily II:8)

Just to clarify! The RCC have embraced neither evolution or creationism. In fact, there are probably far more creationist RC's who couldn't care less - than there are Baptists who do 'care'....If you told some Catholic out in the heart of the bible belt that the world was older than 6000 years they would probably think you had lost your mind - because it doesn't matter to them and neither does evolution and science to live their daily lives...they're happy to just get on with 'living'...


The Catholic church simply don't get involved ( once bitten, and lesson learned ) where it doesn't actually 'matter'....

It's not a 'doctrine' or 'dogma', it's nothing got to do with us in 'faith'.....It's natural science, and natural science is very very important to our understanding of the world around us, and for future generations...Very important!

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

Just to clarify! The RCC have embraced neither evolution or creationism. In fact, there are probably far more creationist RC's who couldn't care less - than there are Baptists who do 'care'....If you told some Catholic out in the heart of the bible belt that the world was older than 6000 years they would probably think you had lost your mind - because it doesn't matter to them and neither does evolution and science to live their daily lives...they're happy to just get on with 'living'...


The Catholic church simply don't get involved ( once bitten, and lesson learned ) where it doesn't actually 'matter'....

It's not a 'doctrine' or 'dogma', it's nothing got to do with us in 'faith'.....It's natural science, and natural science is very very important to our understanding of the world around us, and for future generations...Very important!

OK, from my reading of these articles, it appears the RCC has not officially embraced evolution - just implied it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58


THe RCC does make an issue of Adam & Eve and the Fall, however:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

Sounds to me like Theistic Evolution, with the proviso of a single human couple from which all mankind descended.
_________________________________________________________________
"'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day." (Basil, Homily II:8)

Turtwig

Seaneh wrote: »

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

That's a very nice analogy, I hope you don't mind me stealing it for future use?:)

liamw

Seaneh wrote: »

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

That's lovely but it doesn't answer my question, unless you believe that a being can have a partial soul? So was it like 0.000001% soul, thousands of generations later - 1.23432% soul etc. etc. until you reached 100% soul. I assume you believe modern humans have a full soul? If the soul did not increment in stages like that, although it sounds ludicrous, then a child had to have a soul while it's parents didn't.

Do chimpanzee have a partial soul?

Back to your analagy. You say we the final product of this gradual 'chipping' away.

Using this analagy you are accepting intelligent design?
You are accepting that mutations were not random and selected but directed? To what degree?
Why, in the billions of years of evolution, do you think we at this time are the final product of the creator? Seems a bit arrogant and naive.

bridgetown1

who knows what God looks like?

as he is omnipotent, surely he can take on ANY form?

so with the possibility of sentient life forms in distant galaxies, he would gtake on a form to suit them,



surely..?

Fanny Cradock

liamw wrote: »

Seems a bit arrogant and naive.

It would be great if you let Seaneh answer your multiple questions before declaring that his opinions are arrogant and naive. Why it's almost as if you had an axe to grind :eek:

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

That's lovely but it doesn't answer my question, unless you believe that a being can have a partial soul? So was it like 0.000001% soul, thousands of generations later - 1.23432% soul etc. etc. until you reached 100% soul. I assume you believe modern humans have a full soul? If the soul did not increment in stages like that, although it sounds ludicrous, then a child had to have a soul while it's parents didn't.

Do chimpanzee have a partial soul?

Back to your analagy. You say we the final product of this gradual 'chipping' away.

Using this analagy you are accepting intelligent design?
You are accepting that mutations were not random and selected but directed? To what degree?
Why, in the billions of years of evolution, do you think we at this time are the final product of the creator? Seems a bit arrogant and naive.

Is it really difficult to fathom the idea that when a human being is conceived (or depending on your view point somewhere along that line of conception to birth) the soul is implanted?
I don't think he said we were the final product, he (or she?) was merely using the analogy to make the point that God moulded us from materials in manner similiar to a sculpture whereby the initial rock could be seen as ugly.
Even as an atheist, I cannot understand why you asked the question that someone thinks mutations are not random. Whether something is random or not is an open question, and obviously, if a person believes in God they can say that the mutations appear random to us, but God's will has decided them that way.

Sorry
Slow A&A thread day.:o

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Is it really difficult to fathom the idea that when a human being is conceived (or depending on your view point somewhere along that line of conception to birth) the soul is implanted?

That's not what I'm even talking about. I'm asking at what point during our evolution did souls begin to be 'implanted' into our species? I even asked was this gradual....

I don't think he said we were the final product,

Seaneh wrote:

We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

Even as an atheist, I cannot understand why you asked the question that someone thinks mutations are not random. Whether something is random or not is an open question, and obviously, if a person believes in God they can say that the mutations appear random to us, but God's will has decided them that way.

I'm talking about random in the colloquail sense of the word. Random vs. intelligently directed. Sure you could argue that god set up the universe so that we would deterministically be the end-product, but I'm talking about the mutations themselves.

To fit with the analogy of sculpting the rock, you would effectively have to sculpt the selected genes (or direct them) in a manner which is not random. OR by using the deterministic argument above.

lmaopml

=wolfsbane;68204025]OK, from my reading of these articles, it appears the RCC has not officially embraced evolution - just implied

Thanks Wolfsbane,

You are correct that the Catholic church leave it open to the faithful to use both reason and faith and to be themselves and live and explore, but hold fast to their 'faith'...All we need in 'faith' is written, and even then, we could be forgiven for not getting an A1 - although the resources are all there... but the bible is not a science book...

..and belief in Creationism is not a necessity either...or 'Evolution' for that matter...

It's a weird foundation that.

Seaneh

Malty_T wrote: »

That's a very nice analogy, I hope you don't mind me stealing it for future use?:)

Fire away.

Seaneh

liamw wrote: »

That's not what I'm even talking about. I'm asking at what point during our evolution did souls begin to be 'implanted' into our species? I even asked was this gradual....







I'm talking about random in the colloquail sense of the word. Random vs. intelligently directed. Sure you could argue that god set up the universe so that we would deterministically be the end-product, but I'm talking about the mutations themselves.

To fit with the analogy of sculpting the rock, you would effectively have to sculpt the selected genes (or direct them) in a manner which is not random. OR by using the deterministic argument above.

I have no Idea at what stage souls were implanted.

Secondly, we are not descended from chimps, we have a common, extremely early, ancestor, but we weren't descended from them, or silver backs, or Bonobos, or any modern primate.

Maybe when we developed a level of intelligence necessary to understand the difference between "right" and "wrong" we fully became human? I have no idea of course and to be honest I matters not a jot to me or humanity at large "when" we became humanity.

Of course I, as a Christian, believe god directed the evolution of humanity over the last 13 or so billion years, you basically answered your own question.
If I believe God created man with an image in mind then of course he directed the development, what a redundant question.

liamw

Seaneh wrote: »

I have no Idea at what stage souls were implanted.

Don't care to think about it?

Secondly, we are not descended from chimps, we have a common, extremely early, ancestor, but we weren't descended from them, or silver backs, or Bonobos, or any modern primate.

I know. The point is, I take it you don't think the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzee had a soul (or partial soul)?

Maybe when we developed a level of intelligence necessary to understand the difference between "right" and "wrong" we fully became human? I have no idea of course and to be honest I matters not a jot to me or humanity at large "when" we became humanity.

It kind of does matter when you claim humans are the only species to have souls, given that evolution is a gradual process.

Of course I, as a Christian, believe god directed the evolution of humanity over the last 13 or so billion years, you basically answered your own question.
If I believe God created man with an image in mind then of course he directed the development, what a redundant question.

Yes, but do you think he directed it at the level of selecting genes along the way, or set up the universe initially so we would deterministically be the end-product?

ColmDawson

Seaneh wrote: »

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

If you accept evolution, how can you say that humans are the final product? Do you think that natural selection no longer applies to humans?

PDN

ColmDawson wrote: »

If you accept evolution, how can you say that humans are the final product? Do you think that natural selection no longer applies to humans?

I doubt if there's time for anything else to evolve from us. We're going to screw up the planet before that happens.

Goduznt Xzst

liamw, I fear you will eventually get a reply similar to: "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles they all had souls, all the way back!"

It's a valid question, but it runs into the typical infinite regression dilemma that you've already stated.

For it to be true, at some point in our evolution a primate had to give birth to a human fully in Gods Image, who's parents would die as mere beasts but it would have a spirit that would return to god.

The whole "Michelangelo's David" analogy is a crock. Where did these semi-human half breeds go to at death then if they wheren't beast nor fully human? Is there a seperate section of heaven where God keeps all his rough drafts of humans before he settled on the final version? (serious question)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if there's time for anything else to evolve from us.

Of topic, but still interesting, humans are still evolving actually and recent studies suggest as fast as any other animal

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

Whether or not we will evolve another species of subspecies before we destroy ourselves is a different matter

Totally off topic but if say the Sun explodes before the Rapture would that be evidence God doesnt exist? Or can the Rapture happen without an Earth? Or do most Christians actually believe in the Rapture or is it just Americans who take that seriously/literally?

Seaneh

liamw wrote: »

Don't care to think about it?

Honestly don't care enough, doesn't affect my faith at all. It's not important. I honestly don't see why you are so caught up on it. Why do you care? Why do any of the atheists who post here care?

liamw wrote: »

I know. The point is, I take it you don't think the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzee had a soul (or partial soul)?

Again, I have no idea, I don't claim to know how God works or why he does the things he does. I never claimed to know. I can only have "ideas" much like yourself. To claim I knew anything would be stupid. I'd apply the same to yourself.

liamw wrote: »

It kind of does matter when you claim humans are the only species to have souls, given that evolution is a gradual process.

I never claimed humans are the only species yo have souls. We might be the only species to have immortal souls, I dunno. Genesis speaks of animals having "the breathe of life" whatever the hell that is. Also, Adam and Eve seem to have been vegetarians... revelations has horses in it... what the hell do I know, when did I ever claim animals don't have souls? I don't care, it's not important. I don't know a single Christian who has ever laid awake at night fretting about whether or not their childhood dog rocky was going to be in heaven. Why does it matter? why do YOU care?

liamw wrote: »

Yes, but do you think he directed it at the level of selecting genes along the way, or set up the universe initially so we would deterministically be the end-product?

I have no idea, I don't care, it doesn't matter to my life or my faith or my relationship with God.
Why do you care? Why does it matter to you?

Why are you so hung up about all these things? Go and have a pray about it and try and still the restlessness in yourself about the unimportant parts of other peoples faiths. Maybe you are thinking about all this so much for a reason?

I'll pray for you, maybe you'll finally see the truth.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

liamw, I fear you will eventually get a reply similar to: "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles they all had souls, all the way back!"

It's a valid question, but it runs into the typical infinite regression dilemma that you've already stated.

For it to be true, at some point in our evolution a primate had to give birth to a human fully in Gods Image, who's parents would die as mere beasts but it would have a spirit that would return to god.

The whole "Michelangelo's David" analogy is a crock. Where did these semi-human half breeds go to at death then if they wheren't beast nor fully human? Is there a seperate section of heaven where God keeps all his rough drafts of humans before he settled on the final version? (serious question)

See above.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

Of topic, but still interesting, humans are still evolving actually and recent studies suggest as fast as any other animal

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

Whether or not we will evolve another species of subspecies before we destroy ourselves is a different matter

Totally off topic but if say the Sun explodes before the Rapture would that be evidence God doesnt exist? Or can the Rapture happen without an Earth? Or do most Christians actually believe in the Rapture or is it just Americans who take that seriously/literally?

I think the last paragraph is another thread altogether.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

I think the last paragraph is another thread altogether.

Yeah probably, just PDN's comment reminded me I had always wondered that.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Seaneh wrote: »

Honestly don't care enough, doesn't affect my faith at all. It's not important. I honestly don't see why you are so caught up on it. Why do you care? Why do any of the atheists who post here care?

That's no reason to dodge such a question which is of great significance to all of humanity. How can you just pass up that question, given its relevance.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Again, I have no idea, I don't claim to know how God works or why he does the things he does. I never claimed to know.

I think people care about these questions because despite not having and idea what he did you and other theists insist you know he did something that resulted in the claims of your religion (for example we have souls).

How important this is depends I guess on what Christians or Jews are doing based on that belief.

Seaneh

Melissa Witty Ladle wrote: »

That's no reason to dodge such a question which is of great significance to all of humanity. How can you just pass up that question, given its relevance.

Why is it significance to all of humanity if chimps have souls? It isn't. At all.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think people care about these questions because despite not having any idea what he did you and other theists insist you know he did something that resulted in the claims of your religion (for example we have souls).

I do know what He did, I just have no idea how or why He did it.
He created everything. I know that. I don't know how. I don't care how. It's not important to me. It will not change my life for the better or worse if I suddenly discover the exact mechanism He used.

Wicknight wrote: »

How important this is depends I guess on what Christians or Jews are doing based on that belief.

And what exactly do you assume Christians are doing based on their belifs?

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

I do know what He did, I just have no idea how or why He did it.
He created everything. I know that. I don't know how. I don't care how. It's not important to me. It will not change my life for the better or worse if I suddenly discover the exact mechanism He used.

It is important to the rest of us because we would like to know if he actually did do what you claim or not, particularly when such basis has effects in most areas of life including rather important things like biological research.

Like it or not so long as Christians exist and are attempting to influence policy and society (as they have ever right to do) these questions matter and are important.

If they aren't important to you personally fair enough.

liamw

Seaneh wrote: »

Honestly don't care enough, doesn't affect my faith at all. It's not important. I honestly don't see why you are so caught up on it. Why do you care? Why do any of the atheists who post here care?

I wouldn't say I'm 'caught up on it'. I'm simply curious as to how you reconcile your belief in evolution with that of the human soul.

I'm kind of surprised you're not interested in trying to figure out more about the soul and it's origins, given you believe it to be present.

Again, I have no idea, I don't claim to know how God works or why he does the things he does. I never claimed to know. I can only have "ideas" much like yourself. To claim I knew anything would be stupid. I'd apply the same to yourself.

You obviously have no interest in questioning anything you believe with regards to your religious convictions. Seriously why did you waste my time if you're not interested in debating the questions?

I don't care, it's not important. I don't know a single Christian who has ever laid awake at night fretting about whether or not their childhood dog rocky was going to be in heaven. Why does it matter? why do YOU care?

Same as above

I have no idea, I don't care, it doesn't matter to my life or my faith or my relationship with God.
Why do you care? Why does it matter to you?

Same as above

Why are you so hung up about all these things? Go and have a pray about it and try and still the restlessness in yourself about the unimportant parts of other peoples faiths. Maybe you are thinking about all this so much for a reason?

I'm thinking about this becuase I want to understand reality and the truth. I rather not blindly accept the 'truth' like you do.

I'll pray for you, maybe you'll finally see the truth.

Good, you're not helping me see the truth by telling me you don't care every sentence are you? (I know, I know you don't care)

Ush1

Seaneh wrote: »

When Michelangelo started sculpting "David" he started with a lump or raw marble, he spent hundreds of hours toiling away and knocking little bits of marble off it at just the right angle, just the right place, just the right depth etc. For the majority of the time he was working on it it looked nothing like David, that doesn't mean that Michelangelo wasn't making it in the image of David, he just hadn't finished yet.

Same as God with us. We were always made in his image, he started with a raw product, shaped it into a shape similar to the finished product and then he put the finishing touches on us.

No matter how humanity looked during the process it was always being made with the final image in mind.

What about if homo sapiens become extinct like the other 99.9% of all species that have ever lived?

Seaneh

Ush1 wrote: »

What about if homo sapiens become extinct like the other 99.9% of all species that have ever lived?

If I was going to be a pedant I'd point out they already have and that we are homo sapien sapien, ah, sure feck it. I'll do it.
:pac:

In all seriousness, I dunno. Just means we're not the finished product I guess.

Ush1

Seaneh wrote: »

If I was going to be a pedant I'd point out they already have and that we are homo sapien sapien, ah, sure feck it. I'll do it.
:pac:

In all seriousness, I dunno. Just means we're not the finished product I guess.

Homo sapiens aren't extinct. So would you believe evolution has a finalty? Just curious.

Seaneh

Ush1 wrote: »

Homo sapiens aren't extinct. So would you believe evolution has a finalty? Just curious.

The finality would be perfection I guess? As in, a mirror image of God.
We're a long way off that in fairness, so I guess it's entirely possible we're just another "draft".

housetypeb

Seaneh wrote: »

The finality would be perfection I guess? As in, a mirror image of God.
We're a long way off that in fairness, so I guess it's entirely possible we're just another "draft".

Would we have the powers of god when we reach perfection.would the universe be then full of god like humans?
Maybe you should think a bit more deeply about your beliefs and where they lead to.:D

liamw

housetypeb wrote: »

Maybe you should think a bit more deeply about your beliefs and where they lead to.:D

+1

Seaneh

housetypeb wrote: »

Would we have the powers of god when we reach perfection.would the universe be then full of god like humans?
Maybe you should think a bit more deeply about your beliefs and where they lead to.:D

The Bible already says we can do anything Christ did. So why not?
Maybe not exactly like God, but God like, sure.

housetypeb

Seaneh wrote: »

The Bible already says we can do anything Christ did. So why not?
Maybe not exactly like God, but God like, sure.

Thats great news!!. I'm off to take a walk across the local lake.:)
Must pick up some bread and fish(one each should do)and drop into the local homeless section of town.
And swing by Larrys funeral and surprise his family-hope they will worship me afterwards.