Zone1 For Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution, question

[Meriweather]

No! Where do you think I said that?

Not again! I was not sure of your belief, so I asked a simple question!

Also I notice you disagree with my post where I noted the Catholic Church hold no belief that any other animal has a soul. Perhaps you can point to where the Church teaches other animals do have souls?

 

[buttercup]

Not again! I was not sure of your belief, so I asked a simple question!

Also I notice you disagree with my post where I noted the Catholic Church hold no belief that any other animal has a soul. Perhaps you can point to where the Church teaches other animals do have souls?

Ecclesiastes 3:19 says humans and animals have the same fate and "the same breath", in other words, the breath of God.

Also, the same word used to describe animals in Genesis 1 is used to describe humans in Genesis 2.

And last but not least, it is observably true that animals have souls, when you consider that a soul simply means a mind (which animals have), a will, and emotions.

The debate shouldn't even be whether or not animals have souls. The debate is typically do they have souls that continue on after this life? And since the bible also talks about animals being in heaven, then that one is an easy yes, as well.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The belief is humans are unique in that we have souls. There is no belief that apes ever had souls

It's biblical. And Man is unique because we are made after His kind. We alone are to be Children of God. I also believe the animals are MUCH MORE than most of us understand. But they are not created after the God kind

 

[Meriweather]

It's biblical. And Man is unique because we are made after His kind. We alone are to be Children of God. I also believe the animals are MUCH MORE than most of us understand. But they are not created after the God kind

Again, I was speaking of Catholic teaching. I believe it was Pope Pius who said, no, not in the same way as humans, and then Pope Francis may have said yes, but then the Vatican seemed to gloss over that, so no official change....

Haven't found anywhere in the Bible that animals are in heaven. Have read in a couple of near death experiences of people seeing children with animals, but as far as Church and Scripture, the question of animal souls (versus animal spirits) doesn't seem to have reached a consensus. For those of us who have animals...we have our own conclusions, founded perhaps not so much on specifics in the Bible or Church about animals, but on God's love of His creation.

 

[buttercup]

Meriweather, in regard to humans being made in the image of God, my view on that is different than most Christians. It seems that most Christians believe being made in God's image means that humans have certain characteristics of God... the claim is that we were created as a rational, volitional agent, and also that we have a moral compass. That is true, but in my view the problem with that interpretation is that angels also have those attributes, so it isn't unique to humans.

So my view is that being made in God's image is not about our nature or characteristics, but it has to do with our unique calling or purpose. Just as God has dominion over us, we were given dominion over the animals. God’s intent was for us to be His image-bearers on this earth, to rule (in a Godly way) and be caretakers of creation. That is what sets us apart from the animals, our role.

That's just my take on it though, and I admit that my interpretation could be wrong. Maybe it does mean we have certain characteristics of God, but this is actually a topic for a thread of its own.

And I'm sorry if it seemed like I snapped at you....I just didn't know how you got that out of what I said and I was surprised that you'd ask that. But also maybe it's my lack of sleep recently that is causing me to be a bit short with people, I apologize.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ecclesiastes 3:19 says humans and animals have the same fate and "the same breath", in other words, the breath of God.

Also, the same word used to describe animals in Genesis 1 is used to describe humans in Genesis 2.

And last but not least, it is observably true that animals have souls, when you consider that a soul simply means a mind (which animals have), a will, and emotions.

The debate shouldn't even be whether or not animals have souls. The debate is typically do they have souls that continue on after this life? And since the bible also talks about animals being in heaven, then that one is an easy yes, as well.

that is interesting.

can you quote me that part? Not disputing it, I'd just like to see it.

I have a theory, supported by no one, that Genesis 1, and Genesis 2, tell two different stories of the creation of man.

In Genesis 1, God creates all animals, and then creates "man" (not "a man"). These humans were not ensouled, but clearly Genesis makes the distinction, between "man" and every living creature that moveth," and Man. God first commanded that the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and then commanded man directly to do the same.

In Genesis 2, god makes "the man" the prototypical man with a soul, and from him, made a woman, who would also have a soul, having come from "the man." In other words, when Adam and Eve were created, there were already humans on earth in some abundance.

If that is not true, then who did Cain marry when he was sent east of Eden? Who did Cain fear would attack him, that God put a mark on him to forbid from killing? How did Cain and his son found a city, if the only other people who existed were his parents and dead brother back outside the Garden?

I could be wrong, if anyone knows why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Meriweather, in regard to humans being made in the image of God, my view on that is different than most Christians. It seems that most Christians believe being made in God's image means that humans have certain characteristics of God... the claim is that we were created as a rational, volitional agent, and also that we have a moral compass. That is true, but in my view the problem with that interpretation is that angels also have those attributes, so it isn't unique to humans.

So my view is that being made in God's image is not about our nature or characteristics, but it has to do with our unique calling or purpose. Just as God has dominion over us, we were given dominion over the animals. God’s intent was for us to be His image-bearers on this earth, to rule (in a Godly way) and be caretakers of creation. That is what sets us apart from the animals, our role.

Yes, I've thought on similar lines. "In his image" wouldn't have to mean that we look like God or that God looks like a human with a long white beard, or whatever. I would not expect God to ever be visible to human eyesight, but rather filling the universe and Heaven, if Heaven is outside the physical univers.

It could mean "in his image," the way a house designed by Frank Llyod Wright is in Wright's image.

That's just my take on it though, and I admit that my interpretation could be wrong. Maybe it does mean we have certain characteristics of God, but this is actually a topic for a thread of its own.

Feel free to use this thread, if you like. The original topic seems of interest to few, so the thread isn't really getting off the ground as far as that goes. But it set off some interesting debate.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Again, I was speaking of Catholic teaching. I believe it was Pope Pius who said, no, not in the same way as humans, and then Pope Francis may have said yes, but then the Vatican seemed to gloss over that, so no official change....

Haven't found anywhere in the Bible that animals are in heaven. Have read in a couple of near death experiences of people seeing children with animals, but as far as Church and Scripture, the question of animal souls (versus animal spirits) doesn't seem to have reached a consensus. For those of us who have animals...we have our own conclusions, founded perhaps not so much on specifics in the Bible or Church about animals, but on God's love of His creation.

I have a different view of the soul than Catholic or the Protestant daughters

Both human and animal are given the spirit of life (otherwise we'd be "machines" and not sentient beings).

But both ARE souls. That is MY understanding, and I believe it is Biblical

 

[Donald H]

About 1919 there was a huge reactionary movement towards fundamentalism out of fear of science and modernity. It lead to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

I don't understand why there's a fight between science and spiritual matters.

Please, lead is led.
Christians need to defend their backsliding on their beliefs. In truth it has to be either creation or evolution, but that doesn't work anymore so the church had to invent a creation-ish style of evolution.

The Christians can fight the point with those who don't accept the attempted scam or they can keep it in their churches and be content with believing it for themselves only.

People such as the two I've been debating the question with, aren't content with me and others not believing.

Now you should understand!

 

[Meriweather]

So my view is that being made in God's image is not about our nature or characteristics, but it has to do with our unique calling or purpose. Just as God has dominion over us, we were given dominion over the animals. God’s intent was for us to be His image-bearers on this earth, to rule (in a Godly way) and be caretakers of creation. That is what sets us apart from the animals, our role.

That's just my take on it though, and I admit that my interpretation could be wrong. Maybe it does mean we have certain characteristics of God, but this is actually a topic for a thread of its own.

My question as a youngster was that if God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts, how could it be said we were in the likeness of God, especially as we had also been told the "right arm of God" was not the same as our right arm. The view you presented makes as much sense as any other.

 

[Meriweather]

And I'm sorry if it seemed like I snapped at you....I just didn't know how you got that out of what I said and I was surprised that you'd ask that. But also maybe it's my lack of sleep recently that is causing me to be a bit short with people, I apologize.

Thank you, and no apology needed on your part. It was probably a matter of me summarizing my past position(s) in this thread, while you were moving forward. We were simply on different trains...of thought. It got straightened out.

 

[Donald H]

Yes, I've thought on similar lines. "In his image" wouldn't have to mean that we look like God or that God looks like a human with a long white beard, or whatever.

That's something else that is under revision apparently for some reason. It's always been true as stated and many have drawn likenesses of the god.

Why is it necessary to change what has held to be true for hundreds (thousands) of years?

 

[Donald H]

My question as a youngster was that if God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts, how could it be said we were in the likeness of God, especially as we had also been told the "right arm of God" was not the same as our right arm. The view you presented makes as much sense as any other.

Never throughout history since the Christian god was invented has there been any suggestion that the god's right arm appeared to be any different than a male human's right arm.

The suggestion of the god's right arm isn't the same as man's, isn't suggesting a physical difference. If that's not your recent invention then you would have to show evidence of it being true.

 

[buttercup]

that is interesting.

can you quote me that part? Not disputing it, I'd just like to see it.

I have a theory, supported by no one, that Genesis 1, and Genesis 2, tell two different stories of the creation of man.

In Genesis 1, God creates all animals, and then creates "man" (not "a man"). These humans were not ensouled, but clearly Genesis makes the distinction, between "man" and every living creature that moveth," and Man. God first commanded that the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and then commanded man directly to do the same.

In Genesis 2, god makes "the man" the prototypical man with a soul, and from him, made a woman, who would also have a soul, having come from "the man." In other words, when Adam and Eve were created, there were already humans on earth in some abundance.

If that is not true, then who did Cain marry when he was sent east of Eden? Who did Cain fear would attack him, that God put a mark on him to forbid from killing? How did Cain and his son found a city, if the only other people who existed were his parents and dead brother back outside the Garden?

I could be wrong, if anyone knows why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

I have to give the short answer for now, because I've been on this forum WAY too long today. ha

So the short answer is, the original words for "soul" and "life" (nephesh and hay) are used for both humans AND animals, multiple times in the bible.

Also, the word "spirit" is even used in regard to animals. If you want specific chapters and verses, I'll have to get back to this when I have more time. But of course anyone who is interested can do a search on this. I already mentioned Ecclesiastes 3:19 earlier, but when I have more time I'll try to round up the other verses on this topic.

 

[Donald H]

In other words, when Adam and Eve were created, there were already humans on earth in some abundance.

You're not wrong on that. Many have asked the same question but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

Perhaps Meriweather can with his exceptions to the meaning of words in the English language.

 

[surada]

You're not wrong on that. Many have asked the same question but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

Perhaps Meriweather can with his exceptions to the meaning of words in the English language.

Sumer already had a written language, agriculture, irrigation and sailboats by the time of Adam and Eve.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's something else that is under revision apparently for some reason. It's always been true as stated and many have drawn likenesses of the god.

Why is it necessary to change what has held to be true for hundreds (thousands) of years?

Do you hold it to be true?

 

[Clyde 154]

None of that gets us any closer to answering the question on how many Christians are literal believers in their bibles, and how many have moved on to accepting Darwinian evolution?

Meriweather promoted the idea that 20% were literal believers and he attempted to say that has always been static and unchanging. I have pursued evidence to show that the literal believers in 1900 were close to 80%.

Can we go slowly and answer the questions one at a time?

You keep repeating the same ad hominem, subjective opinions ad nauseam. Simply because there has been a falling away from the truth by the world's societies does not prove that God has ever changed. I do not base my faith upon what society accepts or rejects, but upon the actual content of the Holy Scriptures in Sola Scriptrua revealtion from God.

If God declared that He created everything within the time frame He has revealed...........God created as revealed. Evolution is an impossiblity of the laws of physics and the laws of logic and reason. Eample: Which came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken logically must exist before REPRODUCTON can take place. As Pasteur demonstrated all biological life can only reproduce through pre-existing life within the same species. The Holy Scriptures agree with Pasteur's evidence produced using the "scientific method" of experimentation, that must include, Observation, Reproduction and Consistency with each application.

What do the scriptures declare about BIOLOGICAL LIFE? Everything must reproduce within species, each within LIKE KIND. (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25)

God has made it clear, the gate is narrow that leads to eternal salvation through the faith established by the word of God, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide that and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." -- Matthew 22:13-14


God is unchanging..........God deals in truth, He has never lied. Socieities may evolve but the truth revealed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God has never changed, the Holy Scriptures have remained unbroken for over 3500 years. God has remained consistent........man has not.

Again......if something changes or evovles it was never a FACT, never a Truth, or never a Law.

 

[Clyde 154]

It's far from that simple and to suggest it's so is to impose more restrictions and conditions on the flock than I as an atheist would ask for.

Everybody has moved on and are qualifying that which is to be believed in the bibles as the word of the god. Just ask a sampling of Christians to define that which is the word of god and which is not to be accepted as such!

Can it be the fault of those who wrote the bibles and the fact that they had no way to copy the bibles other than to hand write copies thousands of times? Thus producing the thousandth copy that isn't even remotely similar to the original?

Strange that an athesit who does not believe in God......would attempt to prove that what He does not believe does not exist........if BELIEF is all that is required to establish TRUTH. It takes faith and evidence to establish truth, faith alone is dead.

You might place your face in the fairy tale attempts to explain the origins of this physical reality but I do not. I refuse to accept such theories that state the UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF FROM NOTHING.......it was caused by gravity (when gravity is something rather than nothing, as gravity is subject to quantification/measurement). Its difficult to accept but one of the most intellgent secular minds in man's histroy made such an "idiotic" conculsion. Stephen Hawking. He hated God so much........he simply could not accept the reality that He could not prove that God does not exist through logic or reason.

As Christians we are required to "TEST ALL THINGS........" (1 Thess. 5:21) Christian is not blind, Christian faith is constructed upon the Word of God. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." -- Romans 10:17 The Holy Scriptures have never been proven to be errant from the Truth by either application of History Actual or via Application of Science (not theoritical science or cosmoslogy....but through application of the scientific method, as directed by the Laws of physics._

 

[presonorek]

I suspect that the % of Christians who take their bibles literally could be somewhat more than Meri's claim of 20%.

I’d say the percentage is 0% but the percentage of people who pretend to believe it might be around 20%. There is no way any human is capable of believing such radical nonsense.

Magic blood? Invisible sky daddy? Come on. Seriously? I think if every human being was honest the. We would find 0 people worldwide that believe that nonsense. The claims are absurd.