by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sulla,
Let me tell you how I understand your comment. The first man is metaphorical, and tells the story of when H. sapien first received souls. In effect, this was the point where humans became morally accountable to God, and soon after they failed, possibly not through one sin, but a pattern of sin?
Also, I realize that you are simply sharing one view of this, but I want to make sure I understand the view.
NC
binadub:
I dont have much of a dog in the definitional race (intelligent design vs. creationism vs. theistic evolution vs. whatever), however i took an interest in the work of the Discovery Institute a few years ago and read quite a bit of what William Dembski has produced. I wouldnt call him a liar, but there is quite a gab between what he hint/says he accomplish (detecting design) versus what he actually does.
That is also why AFAIK none of the ideas produced by the discovery institute gets very far in peer review: It sound very exiting when you read the abstract (or more likely, the stuff on the webpage), but the paper simply do not deliver.
Ofcourse most people who are exited about the discovery institute are unable to understand the math (or wont be bothered), and then it sound very impressive and must seem strange the ideas are not taken serious by the rest of the scientific community.
Darwins evolution is an extrapolation theory.
Darwins evolution is an extrapolation theory.
you might want to google extrapolation theory :-).
Let me tell you how I understand your comment. The first man is metaphorical, and tells the story of when H. sapien first received souls. In effect, this was the point where humans became morally accountable to God, and soon after they failed, possibly not through one sin, but a pattern of sin?
Yes, NC, that is a reasonable summary of the position I've outlined. There is a distinction to be made about whether this moral accountability is external to their nature or not, but that may not be immediately relevant to this discussion.
To be fair, most of the issues you have with theistic evolution revolve around the time that it took to get us to this point and the countless loss of life and distress that existed during that time while God did seemingly nothing. It's hard to conciliate this with the idea that God exists, without considering the difference between God's timetable and ours. Assuming there is a God, and you take a 10000 foot view of his supposed timetable, you realize one or two things: That there is no God; or that if he does exist, humans are not all that important to him. I saw a documentary a few weeks ago, about the age and size of the universe and i couldn't help walking away thinking that God's "life" doesn't revolve around humans. In fact it's pretty evident that we are incredibily irrelevant in the whole picture. I'm developing some serious cognitive dissonance about the existence of God and more importantly the validity of the bible, although i still consider myself a believer. The fact is that the bible is really a house of cards. The account of Adam and Eve does not agree with anything factual and scientifically believable. Assumming that it is false, it then invalidates the need to send Jesus to redeem mankind. Also Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve. He also spoke of the great flood ( another scientific impossibility) which makes you question Jesus himself. If bothers me the fact that if there is no God, or at least a God as described in the bible, that this life, is perhaps all we have and perhaps there is no accountability or a reward afterwards, and thus trying to live as a christian is somewhat pointless.
redvip2000, perhaps there is some alternative other than either rejecting Christianity or else holding a fundamentalist Christian view. Maybe some third choice...
Sulla,
Then just a couple of more questions. With this view, am I correct in understanding that it is not saying that humans started from a place of physical perfection? In other words, always in the normal life/death process---at least physically?
And if that is so,(if I understand it correctly) what did they lose metaphorically when they took up a pattern of sin?
NC
I'm sure there are multiple viewpoints, NC. Speaking for myself, it seems to me that there was never a paradise with physically perfect people running around -- not in the strictly historical sense, anyhow. The myth of the Fall, to me, suggests a human rejection of the potential of being who we are meant to be. What we are meant to be is one with the One who is being itself. That said, I don't think the Incarnation was plan B.
Mythically, what was lost was that perfection: a perfect moment of potential, a chance at transcendence if only theoretically. I don't think it could have been any other way: Eve always listens to the serpent, Pandora always opens the box.
Sulla, nice to have somone respond, I was starting to feel shunned lol. Anyway I like your analogy, it's provacative. The difference seems to be in degree. I have irrefutable tangible evidence of the reality of my wife's existance, her direct live communication, her daily actions that result in my pleasure and comfort, her tolerence/indulgence of my idiosyncracies, all of which lend credence to her profession of love for me.
I would imagine many more people would believe in a deity that was as accessable.
Your overall point that I think you are making, is valid' that pure reductionism cannot equip people to interact and live joyful lives. I'm a keen student of emergent less divisible aspects of life, relationships in particular. Social sciences respect that not everything can or will ever be fully predicatable but even in this field of study conclusions need be rationally grounded.
